SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
aristarchus (2645)
Journal of aristarchus (2645)
Over at a blog entitled The Sooty Empiric, the author The Last Positivist has an interesting explanation of the uses and abuses of logic, on the internet. It is interesting, first, because it is interesting ("But aristarchus", you might say, "that is a tautology!" To which I reply, "Yes, it is, and therefore logically true!"), and secondly because the misconception he adresses is rampant here on SoylentNews, as it is elsewhere on the Internets. And thirdly, because it highlights one of the essentials of philosophy: Humility; humility and Socratic ignorance. I'm sure many have noticed my humble attempts to exemplify philosophic humility right here on the pages of SN. But this is not about me. On to the Blog.
Boundless Ocean of Unlimited Possibilities
Sometimes (e.g.) on the internet we angst about the kind of person who likes to DESTROY his enemies with FACTS AND LOGIC AND REASON. Ben Shapiro has become the iconic figurehead of this sort, and not without cause - but that is at least somewhat misleading. Shapiro is prominently a fairly traditional conservative in his politics, but that is not an essential property of the sort. It is not tied to any particular political position so much as a self-characterisation and an aesthetic. The self-characterisation is that of an unbiased objective person who calmly follows (to the best of their abilities, accepting human frailty etc) good principles of rationality to reach conclusions. The aesthetic is that of being very impressed by displays of logical acumen, and very persuaded that one's ideological opponents (whoever they may be) can be set aside with relative ease once the tools of reason are brought to bear against them. This post is my contribution to that genre.
The aesthetic of displays of logical acumen, and a faith in victory! I mean, if not for this, conservatives would avoid logic like they do climate science. But let's see where The Last Positivist is going with this.
Now, I am a fan of fairly orthodox notions of logical argumentation. I do in fact think it is a good thing to offer arguments which are perspicuously such that there is no way for their premises to be true while their conclusion is false. All the better if you begin from true premises! Just on this blog I have tried to clarify clarity all the better to achieve it, and put a name to an under-recognised fallacy.
Philosophy vs. Rhetoric
There is a long history of antagonism between reason and argumentation. Plato assigned his protege, Aristotle, to show how the teachers of rhetoric played tricks upon the rest of us. This led to the creation of the discipline of logic. Plato, through his character Socrates in the dialogue "The Symposium", held that "philosophers" were "lovers of wisdom", from the greek φιλος and της σοφίας for "love of" and " of wisdom". But the wise woman Diotima ("honored by the gods") taught Socrates about love, namely, that love is not having what you desire.
Thus, philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" precisely because they do not possess it. And wisdom minimally should contain the truth, and logic (correct reasoning) is a tool for arriving at the truth? Thus one ought to be able to use logic to compel one's misguided and erring opponents to agree with you, using what Jürgen Habermas calls "the forceless force of reason". Of course, if we "other direct" or weaponize logic in this way, we are using logic to win arguments, not to discover truth, and that is rhetoric and not philosophy. And so, our noble blogger's point:
So, after all that set up, and for all my sympathy and similarity to this group, what spurs this post is that I typically find myself totally opposed to the logic fans in aesthetic and self-presentation. Why should this be?
My guess is it comes from a very different idea of what it is that a general improvement in logical acumen would achieve. The internet logic fan imagines that it would often lead to us agreeing on what is true - by contrast, I imagine it would lead to us agreeing on how much we don't know. They imagine it would knock out possibilities, I imagine it would open them up. The rest of this post is just a quick explanation of what I mean here and why I think that.
If we possessed at least some truth, and were able to identify valid deductive arguments, no doubt we could, and indeed be forced to on pain of being irrational, agree on some things being true.
Logic is, among other things, the study of truth preservation. It gives us tools for discerning when it is that some premises being jointly accepted a conclusion cannot be consistently denied. When an argument has this property of its premises ensuring the truth of its conclusion we say it is valid.
But this is not sufficient.
I think the root of the logic fans' vision for logic DESTROYING their enemies is that with it they shall be making arguments that are valid in this sense. In fact there is usually two sides to this. First, their opponents are shown to be not in the business of arguing at all - what "arguments" they offer are little more than emotive pleas (on that contrast see here). And after that these people are sharply contrasted with the airtight reasoning of a scientifically informed and logically precise debater. They thus envision securing agreement by brushing aside their opponents own perspective, then trapping their enemies in the iron grip of a valid argument, and squeezing conclusions out of them whether they like it or not.
A bit more forceful use of reason, aimed not at laying bare the reasoning for our conclusions, but rather at seeking unilateral cause for dismissing our opponents. This is not agreement, it is "victory"!
But validity is only the beginning of wisdom, not its end. For evidently mere validity by itself is not very interesting - we should like to know not just this relationship between the premises and the conclusion, but also whether or not the premises are in fact true. (An argument which is valid and has true premises is known as a sound argument - by their nature, sound arguments must have true conclusions.) In fact, even that is not enough - for logic to really be dialectically effective in this sort of way, it must offer us not just sound arguments, but sound arguments with premises that are known or sufficiently well established to be true that one's opponents cannot very well reasonably deny them.
This is an interesting point, that logic is not agonistic, it is not a battle for the truth. Instead it is a communal search for truth, for agreement, and that means for an argument to be effective, it must be agreed to at the beginning, with the agreement on premises. In other words, διαλεκτική, Dialectic But, then,
And here is where I think the rub lies - I think it is extremely difficult, vanishingly rare in fact, to have arguments which are (i) interesting, (ii) valid, and (iii) possessing premises that are true and established to be so. By (i) I just mean - on the sort of topics that actually concern us in political and social discussion, coming to contentious conclusions about how we should live or arrange our institutions etc. And by (iii) I mean - having premises that are not only true (hard and rare enough in itself in many cases), but are sufficiently well evidenced such that disputants cannot just as reasonably doubt this premise as accept the conclusion.
What, then, is our valiant blogger's alternative?
So to me the more salient tool in the logician's kit is the counter-model. This is the imaginative skill (also taught in intro logic) of coming up with ways the world could be that would satisfy all of the premises while rendering the conclusion false. This shows us possibilities left open by what is established in our premises, sometimes these are ways the world might be that we may not have been inclined to think about were we not set the task of generating a counter-model. When I envision the world wherein logic is better respected, it is a world wherein this skill is more often deployed.
American Philosopher John Rawls once wrote on the situation where there is no forceful argument in favor of liberal democracy and international law:
Some may find this fact hard to accept. That is because it is often thought that the task of philosophy is to uncover a form of argument that will always prove convincing against all other arguments. There is, however, no such argument.
John Rawls, The Law of Peoples", p. 123
The absence of such arguments is not cause for fear, or rampant relativism. It only means that the force of reason is not what the fanbois of logic on the internet imagine it to be. Logic is not a rhetorical weapon, it is not something that can be used without the consent, agreement, and cooperation of opponents. Which means, ultimately, that we can dismiss Ben Shapiro as a raving emo guy, right?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @03:50AM (12 children)
You have far too much time on your hands. Why don't you take the hours you twaddle away crafting this type of blather and seek out a highly qualified therapist to spend them with instead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday July 06 2019, @04:13AM (4 children)
Oh, dear, sorry! Forgot to provide a trigger warning for our alt-snowflakes. My bad. Or, is this just, like, your opinion, man?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @04:17PM (3 children)
It doesn't need a trigger warning, it needs an artichoke-to-reality Rosetta Stone. Your journal post is just mindless rambling and resembles something that MDC might post on his worst days - but not in a good way. It's almost like you just want to see your own words in print, but texting them to yourself wasn't satisfying enough for you.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @04:58PM (2 children)
It is almost like you didn't (can't?) follow the post itself.
So you read the final bit and got so mad about Ol' Ben being castrated that you show the full scale of your debating skills.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 06 2019, @06:35PM
Almost? Classic case of tl:dr.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 10 2019, @06:18AM
Poor Ben. Almost as sad as what happened to "DeezNuts" [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @04:17AM (5 children)
He's trying out his new Philosopher Bot
Back in the old days, people could write like this because they were high on cocaine, but now, machines can do everything, write music, wax poetic, philosophize and more. It's easy to do, because all these things are gibberish anyway, and machines can generate it every bit as good as any human can.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @04:19PM
If a bot produced this then someone should decompile it and put it out of its misery. Interestingly, the same might be said for artiststarcrust.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @05:58PM (3 children)
This doesn't even require being high, as drug-fueled rampages still require some effort. He just took quotes from the guy wholesale and put in a sentence or two summarizing each paragraph, and then added his usual conclusion of "hence people who disagree with me are mentally deficient in some way."
(Score: 1, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Saturday July 06 2019, @07:47PM
Hello fren,
This being a truism, I salute Aristarchus for attempting to employ the elenctic method in preference to the emulsive method. [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:20AM (1 child)
Not my usual conclusion, that is TMB's usual conclusion. And it is precisely what is being targeting in this journal, and the blog upon which it is based. Why do you persist in being so dense, AC? Are you Mental?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:43PM
Self awareness is not their strong point, otherwise we wouldn't be in the current mess!
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday July 07 2019, @01:11AM
The obvious rebuttal is that it's cheaper than therapy, particularly in the States.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday July 06 2019, @05:43AM (1 child)
I don't know what the fuck you're on about, but I will defend to the death your right to be crazy as you wanna be. So...
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @04:26PM
Some people argue with false suppositions and totally fictional possibilities and using simple logical chains they presume this means they win the argument. It would be like saying Hitler's mad scientists would have cured cancer and most every other disease saving more lives than the Nazis took and thus Nazis should have won WWII.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @03:07PM (13 children)
>Which means, ultimately, that we can dismiss Ben Shapiro as a raving emo guy, right?
Wrong, for the reasons you just stated, of course this last sentence was a trolling attempt.
Einstein said, Shapiro said, Marx said, Peterson said. I don't give a fuck. I care more for what is said and for what the guy who speaks wants me to do about it. There lies the key for understanding. The truth or logical adherence is irrelevant. You can fool people by telling the truth, hard but feasible. More importantly you can DoS people who engage in pointless discussion. QED.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday July 06 2019, @06:40PM
So obvious as to to not need pointing out? Really, AC, I am disappointed in you. But as for action:
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday July 06 2019, @11:03PM (11 children)
So you admit to being brain-dead, a prefect receptacle of whoever comes to feel you with her/his own type of understanding? Or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 07 2019, @01:15AM (10 children)
I guess one could describe the scientific outlook that way.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @02:07AM (1 child)
[citation needed]no recursive references allowed
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Sunday July 07 2019, @05:05AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 07 2019, @07:29PM (1 child)
How very, *very* post-modern of you...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday July 07 2019, @11:12PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @10:02PM (5 children)
You just peaked. Nothing you say or do will live up to that stupid comment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:53AM (4 children)
But perhaps you thought that I took C0lo's comment seriously? Let us remember that in science, determining truth through expert opinion (the thing that the original poster was saying that they didn't do) is already known to have serious failure modes. When we care more who is speaking be it Ben Shapiro (or the other list - Einstein, etc that the AC listed), than in what evidence supports that speech, then we're not being scientific. The AC got that right and c0lo got it wrong. There is a cultivated openness, often developed with many years of training and experience, to scientific thinking and inquiry which can look like "being brain-dead, a prefect receptacle of whoever comes to feel you with her/his own type of understanding" to someone who hasn't thought about it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @12:27AM (3 children)
Awww, sad to see an articulate person that can describe all of their deficiencies so well!
Maybe you're just upset that people are starting to describe the techniques that you *think* are super-awsome-win-times. Ideally it would be possible to listen to the message and ignore the messenger, but if you don't understand why Shapiro is total shit and should not be trusted EVEN IF he says something you find insightful; well then you are just a troll doing exactly what Aristarchus' journal is all about.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @03:43AM (2 children)
Starting to describe logic and reason is a far cry from understanding them. And where were you? These super-awesome-win techniques have been publicized for a long time. Greeks were detailing them about 2500 years ago, give or take. The "counter-model" is basically just storytelling - proof by fiction. It should be no surprise that it'll work no better for the alleged defenders of logic and reason than it will for the enemies of logic and reason.
You're doing it wrong when you trust a message based on who said the message (or perhaps more accurately, on whether the message confirms your biases?). I don't care who Ben Shapiro is. Just because he uses logic and reason on occasion doesn't mean that he uses it well or convincingly (apparently the hubbub is because he doesn't). If his message is good, it'll stand on its own merits no matter how much or little I trust this guy.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 10 2019, @06:15AM (1 child)
My Gawd, khallow! Are you actually so dense? Ok, here we go.
No, it is proof by analogy, which is the most basic way of exposing irrational thought. Classroom example:
I can feel your head shaking from across the vast distances of the internets, khallow, you illogical newb! But look! We change the terms, but keep the structure (which is what logic is all about, after all), and we can present a counter-example:
So you see, my multiferental khallow, we have an argument just like the first argument, but while the premises are true, the conclusion is obviously false, therefore the argument is invalid. That means, the conclusion is not established. Obama is not necessarily a Communist. In fact, he is a Mitt Romney "White Horse Prophecy" Massachusetts insurance company loving Republican conservative.
But the point here is about logic. Remember, true premises, false conclusion, no matter how hard you want it to be true, your logic is fricked. Absolutely. No room for error. Just plain wrong. Invalid. Logic fail.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @11:43AM
Well, your sooty buddy disagrees:
He's not speaking of an analogy. He's speaking of a story, supposedly compatible with the premises, but excluding at least part of the opponent's conclusions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @03:45PM (2 children)
I, for one, enjoy these kinds of posts.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @10:54PM
Need Greek 101 level course.
Alt-education (or whatever it is from Michigan's "what would GOP Jesus [youtube.com] do" calvinist no-go zone that DeVos would like to inflict on the rest of the country) steers clear of the classics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @01:28AM
> I for one, enjoy...
Me too, although SN was my second choice for this Saturday evening...the Daytona 'Cup race was rained out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday July 07 2019, @04:52AM (9 children)
The whole journal rests on this dubious distinction. I don't buy it, if only because so much of philosophical history is about such fruitful conflict, with so much understanding and truth coming out as a result.
I have a better suggestion. If you're repeatedly losing arguments because your opponents use logic and reason, then up your game. On Mr. Sooty's counter-models:
The problem here is that if others whom one is trying to persuade or even merely get to think, don't acknowledge the "counter-model", then it doesn't work (the author gives in a linked article an example where truth-seeking can allegedly lead to fraud, well that can't be true by begged question, right? And thus, the counter-model is shut down). And frankly, if someone isn't willing to consider logical implications of their beliefs or assumptions, then they surely aren't going to consider some counter-model that despite the claim above, doesn't satisfy all of the premises precisely because it renders the conclusion false (as Azuma put it, the axioms are destruction-tested by the theorems they generate and thus the counter-model is rejected).
Except, of course, it can so be used quite successfully with complete disregard for those things. And that absence of constraint is a good idea too. After all, what would be the point of such things, if opponents could block their use and constrain how we can consider those arguments?
For example, I have repeatedly seen people argue a point and then demand that the reader not consider obvious flaws in their statements or arguments which is the most rudimentary sort of logic. Sure, you can claim, for example, that I can't tell you that most Muslims are honest folk (which routinely devastates certain Islamophobia arguments), but I sure can do that and would in this case just to make the point. But what if we can't note that fact? Guess it's time to nuke Islamists because some dude on the internet told us not to think about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 07 2019, @11:55PM (8 children)
YOU are the point, my dear and inflatable khallow! You are a prime inspiration for this journal! You should be so honored!
Yes, it does, and it is not dubious, but I can see how a "culture warrior" like yourself would want to assert same.
In other words, you do buy it? The conflict, or the dialectic, per the journal, is not the point, the point is the aim of the contest. Rhetoraticians, and the Logic fanbois at issue here place winning over winning because you are correct. You agree, right, fluffy khallow?
First, reading comprehension. "Sooty Empiric" is the name of the blog; Last Positivist is the handle of the blogger. Second, what "game" do you refer to? The one you are continually loosing because you have an incorrect concept of logic and the purpose of argument? khallow!
Bad faith, khallow! Argue without the consent of your soylentils! Force your libertarian Vienna Circle crap down their throats until they are silent! Victory! Alt-win! I seriously wonder what you think "success" is, other than filthy rich. Most Soylentils have already constrained your use of arguments that merely restate your rather questionable premises. But it is nice to see you still try to comprehend why you lose, and possibly, someday, you can be a real boy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday July 08 2019, @04:26AM (7 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday July 08 2019, @09:26AM
Same here, khallow. Try with a backhoe. Counter-model? We take your fricking backhoe that you were not using anyway, and put it to work to increase the GDP, ignoring your attempted monopoly pricing. See, that was easy!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @03:53PM (5 children)
You missed the entire point of the post. The "counter model" approach is a decent enough tool to use creativity to find answers or arguments that may be valuable. Your problem is exactly what Aristarchus pointed out, you place "winning" above truth. As long as you can work a conversation long enough you are able to create enough potholes and washouts to supposedly crash your opponent. The fact that they don't agree with your suppositions doesn't matter, you declared a win!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:37AM (4 children)
Since when has telling someone what they supposedly think work any better than Aristarchus's force-through-logic? My view of such things is very different from what you claim. But apparently that doesn't matter.
At least, if you're going to tell me what I'm supposedly thinking, why not tell me that I'm thinking good things? You can just ignore what I actually say (which you probably already do) and just move on to the natural next step, which is that there is no actual disagreement. Just move into that echo chamber and stop wasting time on this generation of theater.
I'll note here that my power of logic and reason can't force Aristarchus to agree with me, but it apparently has forced him to speak of backhoes on numerous occasions. One can get opponents to babble nonsense when they are outlogicked. Sure. it's not very practical, but it does at least illustrate who's been thinking and who hasn't.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:16AM (3 children)
Are you truly that desperate, khallow? Alright, "You are thinking good things. Unfortunately, they are all false." Hope that helps.
Oh, and it is not my backhoes that are irrational. It is that horde of backhoes you have stashed in your underground bunker, waiting for the market to meat you demands, that is irrational. Free your backhoes, khallow! Let them go! Private property is an illusion!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:34PM (2 children)
Why is that a mark of desperation?
You're still shoehorning me into the black hat narrative. Why can't I have the white hat? Why?
Who hasn't been thinking again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
You occasionally have good points and I wouldn't lump you in with Shapiro, but when you are backed into a corner you don't do any self-reflection or critical thinking. You go into bunker mode and deploy all the backhoes to mine your bullshit pit. Quite frequently you fall asleep and imagine new realities while somehow being able to type them out onto SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @11:39AM
How come no one ever comes up with concrete examples of that? It's accuse, accuse, accuse. Never with any facts or examples. Further, what am I supposed to self-reflect or critical think about here? My imaginary disposition to win at all cost? Vague accusations that never amount to anything? Whiny ACs?
Further, how would my writing look any different to you, if I was engaged in more such self-reflection or critical thinking?
Let us note, first, that's a valuable skill for the counter-model approach mentioned in Aristarchus's journal. One has to imagine the reality of the counter-model and then write out the cute story that's supposed to be so persuasive. Second, is this a real thing, or merely a thing imagined by some sleepy-head ACs and whatnot who can't be bothered to use their logic and reason to disagree? Once again, there's this interesting dearth of examples and such.
It sure sounds to me like you are coming up with some elaborate reason for ignoring that sort of thing, rather than engage in any sort of honest communication or debate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday July 07 2019, @02:15PM (10 children)
Logic is a system for developing rules from axioms which are data. A programming language in itself is useless without a program and a program in turn needs data to be input. A program is developed from a specification which is data forming a list of goals or motives. Emotions are a biological mechanism for producing such motives. A rigorous political argument is the application of logic to meet the data of human desires, a bit like how physics is the application of mathematics and logic to process the data of the physical constants and the state of our universe.
The problem comes then when people's desires and motives and sometimes their axioms (which depend on their own conscious or unconscious philosophy) conflict with those of their opponents. Usually, no amount of logic will resolve this.
I've just re-read TFJ and these motives and axioms are the logical premises Ari's referring to:
When the premises are rooted in human desires, they're not something that can easily be evaluated as objectively true or false (right or wrong). Unless both opponents can show the intellectual honesty, humility and courage to openly identify their own relevant desires and thus agree to disagree with one another, any discussion is doomed to deteriorate into the usual monotonously repetitive cycles of "No u!".
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Sunday July 07 2019, @08:26PM (9 children)
Thanks for the comment, Andy of Negative pH! It brings up a point I knew would come up, given Soylentils.
Not sure I agree. Or Last Positivist has referred to the definition of logic as "truth preservation". That means it deals with connections between truth values, which are properties of propositions. Axioms are not data in the usual sense of the word, they are propositions that are posited as true to allow us to derive further true propositions from these suppositions. Data is just the plural form of the Latin word datum, from the verb root, "do-", "to give", so it refers to what is given, not what is posited. Usually, and unhelpfully, these are referred to as facts.
Correct. But not necessarily relevant! Programming is an instance of applied logic. As such, it is meant to "do stuff", to process information, not to preserve truth. A logical argument that has true premises (inputs, data) and a false conclusion is invalid, non-truth functional. A program that with given inputs does not produce the desired outputs is, well, buggy. But not necessarily invalid. The difference is that pure logic is truth functional, computer programs are instructional, or based on commands, not on propositions.
Maybe this is the ground problem. Emotions are "pathos", things we suffer, passions. There may or may not be reasons for them, and don't get me started on "evolutionary psychology"! Specs for a program are data? Just given by whomever wants the tool. The real question is what motives should we have?
This is exactly the aesthetic that is being disputed (leaving aside whether your characterization of physics is correct). If logic is a tool for reasoning correctly, for "truth-finding", rhetoric and programming are attempts to force "the other", whether political opponents or recalcitrant data sets, to conform to our desires. But that outcome is not what is in question. It is whether the specs of our application of logic to political debate are the right ones in the first place.
Does that help?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Monday July 08 2019, @12:01PM (8 children)
OK. I was thinking of them as being data in the sense that generally speaking they're information that we need to remember or store because we can't necessarily derive them on the fly from other propositions. Perhaps they're derived experimentally by looking at the real world. In that case, might a different world produce different axioms?
I thought it was relevant because surely (e.g. political) rhetoric is also applied logic (in the rare case the speaker is bothering to use it). As soon as we start to reason about real world concepts, doesn't the logic become applied rather than pure?
What motives should we possess whilst we attempt to evaluate what motives we should or shouldn't have?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 08 2019, @07:44PM (7 children)
Bingo! That's philosophy! This is where the "love of wisdom" and humility come in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @10:06PM (6 children)
BAH! The brain just wants "wisdom" for the dopamine.
We are biological machines, sir. Very creative, yes, but still we are machines, whose will is totally determined by brain chemistry and the environment.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 09 2019, @11:06PM (5 children)
Really? Or is that just what your brain chemistry wants you to think? This is the problem with behaviorist and deterministic psychology: there is no way it can possibly account for itself. Evolutionary psych even more so. But, once we assume we are biological machines, so what? Does that mean arguing with no regard for the truth is suddenly kosher?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @12:15AM (4 children)
"Truth" Please! The simple laws of physics that make electricity, chemistry, and biology possible is the only truth there is. Your phony baloney Shakespeare is just a bunch of gibberish, all to hit that pleasure center in your big brain, to make you feel all important 'n shit. Gregorian Chants and Mein Kampf can do the same thing. The virtue of one over the other totally depends on who you ask.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @12:35AM (3 children)
Ooooph, your ancestors weep for what they have wrought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @01:15AM (2 children)
Well! If you have something more fundamental than physics, do tell!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2019, @06:31AM (1 child)
Physics is a Fourth Level abstraction from the true base of reality, which is in essence unknowable. Do you want to know what reality really is? Physics assumes the existence of space, and matter, and evidently, energy, so it is a quantrenary level of suppostition, unsupported by anything but its own subsumptions. You do not actually exist. Buddhism is correct. Prepare to cease. Or worse, be reborn as a Trump Republican! My God! What crimes in a past life could condemn one to such a fate? Worse than pussy grabbing slugs! Worse than hungry ghosts starring in a movie with Christina Ricci! You poor bastard! You poor, poor, bastard! Want to buy some Green stamps? Instant karma!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @11:59AM