People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

[maybeagnostic]

...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.

So your objectively true logical conclusion is that the sun is the center of the Universe? The sun happens to be the most convenient center for a reference frame that describes the motion of planets in the solar system. You can get a decent approximation of motion within the solar system with a geocentric reference frame it would just be unnecessarily complicated. In fact, astronomers and physicists seem to disagree with your idea that there is any center of the solar system in an absolute sense and even if you had a universe that only contained our solar system its center still wouldn't coincide with the sun's center.

And this is my attempt at convincing you that many things you seem to think are absolutely true are only 'true enough' for our purposes most of the time.

[sourmìlk]

I already defined that. It's the use of valid logic on true premises.

maybeagnostic: even if I'm wrong about the specific conclusion I used as an example, my point that observation and logic lead to correct conclusions still stand. It just means I made improper observations or used bad logic.

[Zamfir]

What about applying logic to premises that you don't know for sure are true. Is that proper?

[lutzj]

...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.

So your objectively true logical conclusion is that the sun is the center of the Universe? The sun happens to be the most convenient center for a reference frame that describes the motion of planets in the solar system. You can get a decent approximation of motion within the solar system with a geocentric reference frame it would just be unnecessarily complicated. In fact, astronomers and physicists seem to disagree with your idea that there is any center of the solar system in an absolute sense and even if you had a universe that only contained our solar system its center still wouldn't coincide with the sun's center.

And this is my attempt at convincing you that many things you seem to think are absolutely true are only 'true enough' for our purposes most of the time.

And then there's the fact that it's possible that the entire planet is really the back of a great celestial turtle and sourmilk's logical assessment of the universe is just as incorrect as that of Ptolemy.

[sourmìlk]

What about applying logic to premises that you don't know for sure are true. Is that proper?

Well then you can't be certain in the truth of the conclusion, you can only be as certain as you are in your premises. I'm not sure why that matters.

And then there's the fact that it's possible that the entire planet is really the back of a great celestial turtle and sourmilk's logical assessment of the universe is just as incorrect as that of Ptolemy.

We've seen where the Earth stands and it is not on the back of a turtle. Thus the hypothesis that we're on the back of a turtle is false. QED.

[quantumcat42]

"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.

Plugging these definitions into the stated hypothesis:

A proper application of logic leads to the best conclusion that is possible to attain.

We get the insightful observation that:

[the use of valid logic on [current known or determinable premises]] leads to the [highest truth value (as determined by logic)] conclusion that is [[the highest truth value (as determined by logic)] conclusion that can be reached given current known or determinable premises].

Circular definitions are circular.

[eran_rathan]

As an additional exercise, define "objective".

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).

Well for one, the idea that everything has a truth value, and two, that some method of reasoning is necessarily always correct.

"All generalizations are false."

[sourmìlk]

"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.

Plugging these definitions into the stated hypothesis:

A proper application of logic leads to the best conclusion that is possible to attain.

We get the insightful observation that:

[the use of valid logic on [current known or determinable premises]] leads to the [highest truth value (as determined by logic)] conclusion that is [[the highest truth value (as determined by logic)] conclusion that can be reached given current known or determinable premises].

Circular definitions are circular.

I'm aware of that, which makes me even more confused as to why people are disagreeing. How can we disagree with a tautology? Correct conclusions are correct because they're substantiated by logic. That's the definition.

As an additional exercise, define "objective".

True from all viewpoints consistent with reality.

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).

Well for one, the idea that everything has a truth value[/quote]
This doesn't invalidate my point.

and two, that some method of reasoning is necessarily always correct.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by "method of reasoning"?

[Zamfir]

Well then you can't be certain in the truth of the conclusion, you can only be as certain as you are in your premises. I'm not sure why that matters.

Pretty every question of interest fall under this case. That surely matters?

Also, I gave you the fluid dynamics example above, where we are typically highly certain of our premises, but still highly uncertain about our conclusions. Uncertainty propagates in rather complicated ways through chains of reasoning.

[sourmìlk]

Well then you can't be certain in the truth of the conclusion, you can only be as certain as you are in your premises. I'm not sure why that matters.

Pretty every question of interest fall under this case. That surely matters?

Scientific questions tend to have possible answers that are completely true for any non-negligible amount of uncertainty.

Also, I gave you the fluid dynamics example above, where we are typically highly certain of our premises, but still highly uncertain about our conclusions. Uncertainty propagates in rather complicated ways through chains of reasoning.

I didn't quite get that example. What conclusions are people uncertain about?

[eran_rathan]

True from all viewpoints consistent with reality.

heh. I'm going to point again to the idea of inertial and non-inertial reference frames - how far is it from New York to Boston?

A. Depends on how fast you are going, and in what direction.

[sourmìlk]

I know what length dilation is. That's why the objectively correct answer is a formula and not a constant.

[eran_rathan]

I know what length dilation is. That's why the objectively correct answer is a formula and not a constant.

which is entirely dependent on your reference frame, which is arbitrary.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I already defined that. It's the use of valid logic on true premises.

In that case, yes, I agree with your original assertion that only true conclusions can come from sound logic.

[Panonadin]

A thread about people choosing emotions over reason full of people (read: a person) choosing emotions over reason. No one is surprised but continues to beat a dead horse.

Hey the above is kind of like the article.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Who said anything about emotions?

[Meteoric]

Who said anything about emotions?

Do you see why this bothers me?

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

[Zamfir]

Which brings us to the important question: did you cry when Bambi's mother died? And when T1000 fell in the molten metal? Bots: no lying.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

OK, so I was responding to a post where someone had accused people here of "choosing emotions over reason." Taken very literally, you've answered my question. But that's not what I was actually looking for.

[Meteoric]

Er, I read Panonadin's post as referring specifically to sourmilk in this thread. I apologize if I have misinterpreted his/her/its or your meaning.

[Ghostbear]

I read it* as implying that sourmilk is providing a great example of choosing their emotional logic (in this case, probably along the lines of: use of logic always and forever reaches the proper outcome, with the idea that most problems or discussions can be subjected to such analysis) despite being provided with logic to the contrary.

* Especially since I had made a similar post earlier.

Which brings us to the important question: did you cry when Bambi's mother died? And when T1000 fell in the molten metal? Bots: no lying.

That poor, poor robotic killing machine. It gets me every time.

[Zamfir]

I often choose emotions over reason. Reason has its limits, and once you get closer to those, it becomes a tiresome exercise. You can reason yourself to some conclusion that you feel is wrong, and then you have to start all over again, extra slow and extra careful, while you could have been watching TV, or baiting people on the internet.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Fuck me, I missed the "(read: a person)" qualifier.

[Angua]

Logically, which is more moral - stealing from someone without killing them, or killing them then stealing.

Spoiler:

In the mind of the Norse people, raiding was very distinct from theft. Theft was abhorrent. According to the Norse mythology as told in Snorra Edda, theft was one of the few acts that would condemn a man to a place of torment after his death. On the other hand, raiding was an honorable challenge to a fight, with the victor retaining all of the spoils.

A story from chapter 46 of Egils saga Skalla-Grímssonar illustrates this distinction. While raiding a coastal farm, Egill and his men were captured by the farmer and his family, who bound all of the raiders. In the night that followed, Egill was able to slip his bonds. He and his men grabbed their captors' treasure and headed back to the ship. But along the way, Egill shamefully realized he was acting like a thief, saying, "This journey is terrible and hardly suitable for a warrior. We have stolen the farmer’s money without his knowledge. We should never allow such shame to befall us."

So, Egill returned to his captors' house, set it ablaze, and killed the occupants as they tried to escape the fire. He then returned to the ship with the treasure, this time as a hero. Because he had fought and won the battle, he could justly claim the booty.

source:http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm

[gmalivuk]

As an additional exercise, define "objective".

wTrue from all viewpoints consistent with reality.

Circles within circles within circles.

Define "reality".

And remember: just declaring things still doesn't magically make them true, even after all this time trying.

[Panonadin]

Fuck me, I missed the "(read: a person)" qualifier.

I cannot pinpoint why but this made me laugh. I think it has something to do with your avatar. Does anyone else apply a mini personality to the way someone posts with the picture they have attached to said posts? Even though some of them are obviously not supposed to be a representation of the person behind the avatar what so ever. I don't know, maybe thats just me.

OT: Does OT mean off topic or on topic? I have seen it used both ways and sometimes I refrain from saying it because I worry some people will think, "Well thats not off topic at all" and others "Well thats very off topic, why did you write OT?"

OT: Isnt there an emotion that allows us to understand and accept other peoples emotions. There should be.

OT/OT: Is Bambi a girl?

[Radical_Initiator]

OT: Isnt there an emotion that allows us to understand and accept other peoples emotions. There should be.

Only if you consider MDMA to be an emotion.

[sourmìlk]

Define "reality".

That which, when we stop believing in it, does not cease to exist.

Look, I think there's some sort of semantic confusion here. I made a tautological statement that should be the least controversial thing ever, and suddenly everybody is a nihilist saying that it's impossible to determine the truth. I'm not sure you're all clear on what I'm saying. I'm not saying that there is always an objectively correct conclusion to every problem, I'm saying that the proper use of logic will lead to a true conclusion, if there is one, whereas an appeal to emotion will not. Nobody should have a problem with this statement, as it's tautological: logic is the means by which we determine truth.

[lutzj]

I'm saying that the proper use of logic will lead to a true conclusion, if there is one, whereas an appeal to emotion will not. Nobody should have a problem with this statement, as it's tautological: logic is the means by which we determine truth.

It becomes tautological when you define "proper logic" as "logic which results in true answers," and then state that "proper logic results in true answers," which is both useless (because you are creating a tautology nobody cares about) and wrong (because nobody else agrees with your definition of "proper logic").


Valid deductive logic does not always result in accurate conclusions. Conversely, emotion often leads one to the truth (since part of the biological function of emotions is to help one make decisions).

[sourmìlk]

Valid deductive logic does not always result in accurate conclusions.

It does by definition when there is an accurate conclusion that can be reached.

[lutzj]

Valid deductive logic does not always result in accurate conclusions.

It does by definition when there is an accurate conclusion that can be reached.

I'm sorry to play this card, but have you ever seriously studied formal logic? You keep conflating validity with soundness and logic with reason.

[quantumcat42]

Valid deductive logic does not always result in accurate conclusions.

It does by definition when there is an accurate conclusion that can be reached.

It does by definition when you construct a definition that makes it so.

[sourmìlk]

I'm sorry to play this card, but have you ever seriously studied formal logic? You keep conflating validity with soundness and logic with reason.

Yes, I have. And I don't think I need to reiterate my point about true premises every time.

It does by definition when you construct a definition that makes it so.

What? No, truth and valid logic are defined with respect to each other.

You realize that it's a contradiction to use logic to argue that logic doesn't work, right?

[moiraemachy]

I made a tautological statement that should be the least controversial thing ever, and suddenly everybody is a nihilist saying that it's impossible to determine the truth.

The problem is that you claimed that it is possible to apply logic to observation objectively and get somewhere.

It's the use of valid logic on true premises.

Scientific questions tend to have possible answers that are completely true for any non-negligible amount of uncertainty.

You can apply bullet-proof logic to axioms and get correct conclusions. However, this won't get you very far in the real world, and is not how science works: we don't stop at the "observation" step, "observation" is just gathering data. There is the fundamental step of inferring conclusions from "observation", and this can't be done in an objective way. Since every conclusion suggested by observation can't be correct, we attach qualifiers such as "degree of uncertainty" and "trustworthiness" to conclusions in order to decide which one to discard when they are in conflict, or when further investigation is necessary. The problem is that these qualifiers can't be obtained in an objective way. Even in science we end up trusting experiments other people did and the peer-review of their maths, and, at a more fundamental level, that we didn't screw up in our experiments and reasoning.

Arguing that a method's efficacy at assigning "trustworthiness" to a conclusion can be assessed by checking how often it leads to correct conclusions is circular: you can't know if a conclusion is correct without a method to check it's correctness.

tl;dr: we use science because we like it, not because logic says it's the best way to get to the truth. You can believe so, but this belief can't be derived from logic.

[sourmìlk]

You can apply bullet-proof logic to axioms and get correct conclusions. However, this won't get you very far in the real world, and is not how science works: we don't stop at the "observation" step, "observation" is just gathering data. There is the fundamental step of inferring conclusions from "observation", and this can't be done in an objective way. Since every conclusion suggested by observation can't be correct, we attach qualifiers such as "degree of uncertainty" and "trustworthiness" to conclusions in order to decide which one to discard when they are in conflict, or when further investigation is necessary. The problem is that these qualifiers can't be obtained in an objective way. Even in science we end up trusting experiments other people did and the peer-review of their maths, and, at a more fundamental level, that we didn't screw up in our experiments and reasoning.

I don't see any of this as invalidating any of my points. The fact that many things are knowable only to a certain degree of certainty doesn't change that logic is the only method from getting from observation to the most correct conclusions possible.

Arguing that a method's efficacy at assigning "trustworthiness" to a conclusion can be assessed by checking how often it leads to correct conclusions is circular: you can't know if a conclusion is correct without a method to check it's correctness.

Yes, exactly! So how can you say that logic leads to incorrect conclusions when it tautologically doesn't?

Really, I feel like we're talking past each other. What, exactly, do you think my argument is here?

[yurell]

Yes, exactly! So how can you say that logic leads to incorrect conclusions when it tautologically doesn't?

Because you're defining logic completely differently to everyone else.

[moiraemachy]

The fact that many things are knowable only to a certain degree of certainty doesn't change that logic is the only method from getting from observation to the most correct conclusions possible.

I don't disagree with this. But you won't get anywhere without adding subjective assumptions to your observations. And these assumptions will differ from person to person; this is why you can't dismiss "emotional" arguments.

Take the "earth revolves around the sun" example again. You don't get to it from "observation and logic" only: you also need to trust astronomers, believe optics work, assume you didn't hallucinate all that stuff, and think giant complex mirror arrays built by aliens are a ridiculous. These assumptions are subjective; you won't get to them with logic only. If your subjective experience somehow makes you not agree with these assumptions, it is logical to disagree. Or, under your definition: the logical thing is to answer every single question with "I have no idea, I don't know the odds of alien giant complex mirror arrays existing".

Someone should be able to come up with a better example...

[quantumcat42]

It does by definition when you construct a definition that makes it so.

What? No, truth and valid logic are defined with respect to each other.

You realize that it's a contradiction to use logic to argue that logic doesn't work, right?

Who's arguing that logic doesn't work? I'm arguing that in your well meaning crusade to define away all intellectual grey areas, you're letting your love of the idea of logic get in the way of its proper application.

[Shivahn]

I think it might be helpful to point out that logic is usually explicitly stated to be truth-preserving, not truth generating. It's... kind of a well accepted thing that false statements can cause false conclusions within a logical framework, without the framework ceasing to be that of logic.

I guess it might be helpful to consider logic to be strictly symbolic. That is, stop considering something logic unless it's in the form of:

Premises: (symbols only, no semantics)
Series of logical operations:
Conclusion: (usually a single symbol, though often a predicate involving several symbols and quantifiers).

Because that's logic, right there. Logic is the part that takes you from P to Q, regardless of the P or the Q. And if the P is true, you're guaranteed to have a true Q. If the P isn't true, it doesn't cease to be logic. Because if the P were true, the Q would be true, and that's what logic is.

[sourmìlk]

Yes, exactly! So how can you say that logic leads to incorrect conclusions when it tautologically doesn't?

Because you're defining logic completely differently to everyone else.

How is everybody else defining it?

Who's arguing that logic doesn't work?

As far as I can tell, everybody. They're saying that a proper application of logic can lead to incorrect conclusions when, by the very definitions of "proper", "logic", and "incorrect" that is impossible.

I'm arguing that in your well meaning crusade to define away all intellectual grey areas, you're letting your love of the idea of logic get in the way of its proper application.

Since when have I been trying to define away intellectual gray areas? I've said several times that there are certain things that need to be taken as axiomatic and certain things that can only be known to within degrees of certainty. That doesn't change my point that we should use logic and observation to determine truth because it consistently and by definition results in the most accurate conclusions possible, whereas emotional appeals do not.

I think it might be helpful to point out that logic is usually explicitly stated to be truth-preserving, not truth generating.

That's why I added observation, so we can determine the truth of premises.

I think you're disagreeing with what I'm saying because you don't know what I'm saying. When I say that logic necessarily leads to the best possible conclusions, that is a tautology, because we defined the goodness of conclusions via how well they stand up to logic. It's like saying "drawing with a red pen will be the best choice for drawing the color red", because that is how we define red pens. So it depresses me to see that people are better at visualizing the idea of red when they draw with purple pens. Okay, the analogy sort of broke down there, but I think you see what I mean?