People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

sourmìlk, what exactly do you mean by "logic"?

[eran_rathan]

EDIT: Ooo, and at the end you have to throw the constitution in Mount Helens, and the movie will be named National Precious

If the quest is literary then that might not be a bad thing as long as we get Peter Jackson to be the director. If the quest is a RPG the movie is likely to be directed by Uwe Boll.

hmm...I was going to say, "As long as it's not Micheal Bay," but then stopped myself - Worst case scenario, I'm sure we can all agree, is the two of them being co-directors.

I'm not so sure. Michael Bay only gets one thing right (explosions) but Uwe Boll gets nothing right so the combination of the two of them will be at worst as bad as Uwe Boll.

Lim_{x-> Uwe Boll}X+C = Uwe Boll? That's terrifying.

[lutzj]

If there is insufficient information to draw a correct conclusion, then application of logic on true premises will necessarily lead to the best conclusion, or at worst show that we have insufficient information to draw a conclusion.

No, especially if one is employing the hard deduction you seem to favor so much. People operated under the false premise that the Sun revolved around the Earth for centuries and, until the telescope, the knowledge needed to assume otherwise was beyond the bounds of what humans could observe. Assuming that the Sun revolved around the Earth before that point was perfectly backed-up by accurate observations and valid deductive logic.

As for abortion as a contradiction to the idea that we hold similar ethical axioms: usually the argument that fetuses have souls isn't taken as axiomatic, its based on something the Bible says or perceived scientific evidence, and is ultimately refutable.

You might be able to refute the notion of souls as precisely laid down in the Bible, but you'll have a hard time conclusively disproving the moral importance of a fetus without the use of your own unprovable axioms. If you could, we'd all love to hear your analysis.

[induction]

Either logic necessarily leads to correct conclusions...

roughly .001% of the time

or truth is unknowable (or is subjective).

the rest of the time. (Bolded part mine.)

And again, I recognize that people often assume false premises, but they can usually be shown to be false.

Just a few posts ago, for your benefit, we enacted a mock argument to demonstrate that people very often disagree on axioms, which leads to different conclusions. Neither of these axioms can be shown to be false without circular reasoning.

Recap:
position 1: The Constitution has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: The Constitution

position2: God has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: God

[Diadem]

Were you under the impression that the true meaning of love involves being a colony of Britain? There's no gay marriage there.

Perhaps they are a Canadian colony. Or a Dutch one. Or a South-African one.

I'm going to go with "Canadian colony". Except for New York. That's ours.

[Silknor]

As for abortion as a contradiction to the idea that we hold similar ethical axioms: usually the argument that fetuses have souls isn't taken as axiomatic, its based on something the Bible says or perceived scientific evidence, and is ultimately refutable.

You see it as refutable. But I doubt anyone who takes as a matter of faith that the Bible is the literal word of God would agree with you. How can you refute the idea that homosexual behavior is a sin? Or that a soul is present from the moment of conception (which is really just the same challenge as proving that souls do not exist, either in the physical observable world or elsewhere). These are not falsifiable claims. They are not claims that can be proven or disproven, only believed or not believed, assumed on faith or not assumed.

I support marriage equality, but I don't hold out a second's hope that anyone who doesn't will be convinced by the argument eran_rathan made or any other logical argument. Why? Because they're all going to be based on premises that not everybody holds.

@lutzj: I don't think this is true. What it sounds like in that example is that the observations weren't accurate enough to distinguish the two (not yet competing) hypothesis. Logic would dictate then that we could not conclude which is accurate. Logic prevents us from saying: the data fits our hypothesis to within (what by today's standards would be very large) experimental error, therefore our hypothesis is true.

[eran_rathan]

Recap:
position 1: The Constitution has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: The Constitution

position2: God has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: God

rebuttal of position2: gods have no say on what is legal. "Render unto Caesar..."
source: a god (or demi-god, or whatever - zombie maybe?).

[Dauric]

I'm not so sure. Michael Bay only gets one thing right (explosions) but Uwe Boll gets nothing right so the combination of the two of them will be at worst as bad as Uwe Boll.

... A movie that gets explosions wrong?

I can only imagine it would be like this.

[sourmìlk]

No, especially if one is employing the hard deduction you seem to favor so much. People operated under the false premise that the Sun revolved around the Earth for centuries and, until the telescope, the knowledge needed to assume otherwise was beyond the bounds of what humans could observe. Assuming that the Sun revolved around the Earth before that point was perfectly backed-up by accurate observations and valid deductive logic.

But through the use of proper observation and logic we arrived at the correct conclusion. I didn't say it didn't take a while.

roughly .001% of the time

All scientific discoveries comprise .001% of the time?

the rest of the time. (Bolded part mine.)

A subjective truth is sort of a contradiction. If something is subjective, it doesn't really have a truth value.

Just a few posts ago, for your benefit, we enacted a mock argument to demonstrate that people very often disagree on axioms, which leads to different conclusions. Neither of these axioms can be shown to be false without circular reasoning.

Recap:
position 1: The Constitution has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: The Constitution

position2: God has the final say on what should or shouldn't be legal.
source: God

Neither of those things need to be taken as axiomatic, thus it is illogical to do so.

You see it as refutable. But I doubt anyone who takes as a matter of faith that the Bible is the literal word of God would agree with you.

They're wrong.

[lutzj]

No, especially if one is employing the hard deduction you seem to favor so much. People operated under the false premise that the Sun revolved around the Earth for centuries and, until the telescope, the knowledge needed to assume otherwise was beyond the bounds of what humans could observe. Assuming that the Sun revolved around the Earth before that point was perfectly backed-up by accurate observations and valid deductive logic.

But through the use of proper observation and logic we arrived at the correct conclusion. I didn't say it didn't take a while.

How do you know that our current understanding is correct?

[sourmìlk]

...how do I know that the Earth orbits the sun?

Observation of the movements of bodies in this solar system relative to us, observation of the solar system via probes sent out by us, proven laws of gravity from Newton to Einstein, etc. There are no potential facts that could possibly arrive to show that the solar system is geocentric.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

sourmìlk, what exactly do you mean by "logic"?

[Princess Marzipan]

There are no potential facts that could possibly arrive to show that the solar system is geocentric.

False!

[induction]

All scientific discoveries comprise .001% of the time?

at most. You don't think the whole gay marriage debate is a scientific question do you?

A subjective truth is sort of a contradiction. If something is subjective, it doesn't really have a truth value.

I think you're assuming a binary system of truth values. This does not apply to most of the things we have public debates about.

Neither of those things need to be taken as axiomatic, thus it is illogical to do so.

Please explain.

[Meteoric]

They're wrong.

But for this topic, it doesn't matter even if we can prove them conclusively and objectively wrong. As long as we're voting on the issue, or voting for people who will legislate on the issue, their opinion matters. Logic alone is (apparently) not working. Adding some emotional appeal to support that logic helps convince people.

[eran_rathan]

...how do I know that the Earth orbits the sun?

Observation of the movements of bodies in this solar system relative to us, observation of the solar system via probes sent out by us, proven laws of gravity from Newton to Einstein, etc. There are no potential facts that could possibly arrive to show that the solar system is geocentric.

(emphasis mine)

Fundamentalism at its finest.

Before you start to berate me, hear me out: You are refusing to acknowledge any evidence contrary to your currently held synthesis of belief, regardless. That is more or less the definition of fundamentalism: instead of altering your beliefs to fit the facts, altering (or refusing to accept) the facts to fit your beliefs.

EDIT: Also, it depends on your reference frame.

[Silknor]

But through the use of proper observation and logic we arrived at the correct conclusion. I didn't say it didn't take a while.

How do you know that our current understanding is correct?

We don't know our current understanding is correct. We may have strong evidence in favor of it, and overwhelming evidence against every alternative theory we've devised, yet we still don't truly know it's correct. But we don't have to be positive our current understanding is correct in order for it to be useful knowledge, of course.

@sourmilk:

They're wrong.

I doubt you could prove that to the satisfaction of a neutral observer, but this illustrates the problem with relying on logic to try to convince people on ethics. No doubt you can reach a conclusion you're sure is right with the strictest of logic, but you'd be just as foolish as you think the "literal word of God" crowd is if you think you can actually convince one of them with that logic.

[sourmìlk]

All scientific discoveries comprise .001% of the time?

at most. You don't think the whole gay marriage debate is a scientific question do you?

No.

Before you start to berate me, hear me out: You are refusing to acknowledge any evidence contrary to your currently held synthesis of belief, regardless. That is more or less the definition of fundamentalism: instead of altering your beliefs to fit the facts, altering (or refusing to accept) the facts to fit your beliefs.

EDIT: Also, it depends on your reference frame.

If facts were to arise that challenged that then I would change my opinion, but it's impossible that facts would arise to prove a geocentric universe. This isn't fundamentalism, it's logic: any observation of a geocentric universe would contradict observation of a heliocentric solar system, and thus is impossible. QED.

I doubt you could prove that to the satisfaction of a neutral observer, but this illustrates the problem with relying on logic to try to convince people on ethics. No doubt you can reach a conclusion you're sure is right with the strictest of logic, but you'd be just as foolish as you think the "literal word of God" crowd is if you think you can actually convince one of them with that logic.

I know people aren't convinced by logic. My whole point is that that makes me sad.

[Ghostbear]

This whole topic might have gone meta, I think: someone is choosing to rely on an emotional conclusion despite logic being provided to them to the contrary.

[Zamfir]

roughly .001% of the time

All scientific discoveries comprise .001% of the time?

Actually, scientific discoveries are a typical example of inductive reasoning: deriving general conclusions from special cases. And as far we know, there exists no inductive logic with the same hard guarantees as deductive logic.

Which is pretty clear if you look at the history of science. Scientific discoveries are obviously not proven with the same rigour as mathematical deductions. They often turn out wrong, and most of them are known to be approximate. AKA "wrong"in your lingo.

I am sorry, but science just doesn't live up to sourmilkian standards of reasoning.

[Silknor]

@Sourmilk:
But of course, the reason that some aren't convinced by your logic on these issues isn't that logic isn't perfect, all powerful, and fully capable of proving that your view is the only correct one on X issue, but rather that the people who disagree with you are ignorant of your logic, deeply irrational, etc.

This is a surprisingly common view, one I've heard in many places, from many people. It's almost as if they were clinging to the omnipotence of their logic in spite of logic itself...

[sourmìlk]

I have a hypothesis. Would it be acceptable if I said that a proper application of logic leads to the best conclusion that is possible to attain?

Silknor, I make no guesses as to the motivation behind people's disagreement with me. It might be a gut reaction, it could be a misapplication of logical thought, I don't know.

[eran_rathan]

Before you start to berate me, hear me out: You are refusing to acknowledge any evidence contrary to your currently held synthesis of belief, regardless. That is more or less the definition of fundamentalism: instead of altering your beliefs to fit the facts, altering (or refusing to accept) the facts to fit your beliefs.

EDIT: Also, it depends on your reference frame.

If facts were to arise that challenged that then I would change my opinion, but it's impossible that facts would arise to prove a geocentric universe. This isn't fundamentalism, it's logic: any observation of a geocentric universe would contradict observation of a heliocentric solar system, and thus is impossible. QED.

I'd like to point you out to the idea of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference, mate. Also the equivalence principle, Lorentz contraction, and a number of other weirdness that derives from relativity.

[sourmìlk]

I know there's weird relativistic stuff to specify when we say that the Earth orbits the sun, but I think we're assuming that's specified in such a way that the Earth orbits the sun for these purposes.

[Radical_Initiator]

I know there's weird relativistic stuff to specify when we say that the Earth orbits the sun, but I think we're assuming that's specified in such a way that the Earth orbits the sun for these purposes.

Why would we do that?

[sourmìlk]

For the sake of argument?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

sourmìlk, what exactly do you mean by "logic"?

[eran_rathan]

I know there's weird relativistic stuff to specify when we say that the Earth orbits the sun, but I think we're assuming that's specified in such a way that the Earth orbits the sun for these purposes.

also:

sourmìlk, what exactly do you mean by "logic"?

[sourmìlk]

I don't understand the question. Do you want me to define logic?

[Meteoric]

I have a hypothesis. Would it be acceptable if I said that a proper application of logic leads to the best conclusion that is possible to attain?

For some values of "proper", "best", and "possible" sure. But getting everybody to agree on those is at least as hard as, and probably much harder than, convincing them of the original argument ("gay marriage should be legal") in the first place.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I don't understand the question. Do you want me to define logic?

Yes. Terms like "logic" and "right" and "subjective" and "best" and "reason" and "observation" are entering this discussion much faster than definitions. In that definitions aren't entering at all.

So the question is for you to define "logic."

[eran_rathan]

I don't understand the question. Do you want me to define logic?

Yes, I think that would be reasonable. Also; no axioms, predicates, a priori assumptions, or undefined terms. Have fun.

[sourmìlk]

I have a hypothesis. Would it be acceptable if I said that a proper application of logic leads to the best conclusion that is possible to attain?

For some values of "proper", "best", and "possible" sure. But getting everybody to agree on those is at least as hard as, and probably much harder than, convincing them of the original argument ("gay marriage should be legal") in the first place.

"Possible" being the best conclusion that can be reached given current known or determinable premises, "best" being of the highest truth value (as determined by logic), and "proper" being the use of valid logic on premises that we know to be true.

logicⁿ: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

Also; no axioms, predicates, a priori assumptions, or undefined terms.

Why? I already said that logic requires some axioms.

[Zamfir]

I don't understand the question. Do you want me to define logic?

It would already help if just gave a vague impression what you include and do not include in the concept. You appear to use the word for many things that are not typically included, like observations and scientific discoveries.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Ok. So "All dolphins are pink; I am a dolphin; ∴ I am pink" is a valid argument. But weren't you just saying that this is illogical?

[sourmìlk]

I added that logic and observation (i.e. as separate entities) were necessary for determining truth.

Bolshevik: I said that it was an improper application of logic as its based on demonstrably false premises.

I'm confused, I thought this board was pro-science. Why are we suddenly dismissing logic and observation as a means of determining truth?

[lutzj]

I added that logic and observation (i.e. as separate entities) were necessary for determining truth.

Bolshevik: I said that it was an improper application of logic as its based on demonstrably false premises.

I'm confused, I thought this board was pro-science. Why are we suddenly dismissing logic and observation as a means of determining truth?

We're not dismissing the use of logic and observation, rather the notion that logical analysis always results in truth. Otherwise Socrates would have figured everything out and there'd be no more philosophy to do.

[eran_rathan]

I added that logic and observation (i.e. as separate entities) were necessary for determining truth.

Bolshevik: I said that it was an improper application of logic as its based on demonstrably false premises.

I'm confused, I thought this board was pro-science. Why are we suddenly dismissing logic and observation as a means of determining truth?

We are, we just understand its limitations.

[sourmìlk]

I added that logic and observation (i.e. as separate entities) were necessary for determining truth.

Bolshevik: I said that it was an improper application of logic as its based on demonstrably false premises.

I'm confused, I thought this board was pro-science. Why are we suddenly dismissing logic and observation as a means of determining truth?

We're not dismissing the use of logic and observation, rather the notion that logical analysis always results in truth. Otherwise Socrates would have figured everything out and there'd be no more philosophy to do.

I later appended that we needed observation.

We are, we just understand its limitations.

What do you think those are? (I know that there exist some, I'm just wondering what you think there are).

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Bolshevik: I said that it was an improper application of logic as its based on demonstrably false premises.

There's nothing in logic that says that you have to use true premises. Not in the definition that you gave, anyway (but also not in anything I've gotten from studying the stuff formally). So now you have this extralogical notion of when it's proper to use logic. Could you define that?