The problem with TSB is roughly the same as the problem with America -- virtually nobody here understands logic, or how an actual debate is supposed to flow.

So, what I mean to ask here, is ... who has been exposed to formal logic before? A simple yes or no answer would work, but feel free to discuss as well.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : Oh, and to participate in my own poll... I have.]

10/25/2006 5:11:44 PM

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:14:23 PM

mcdanger is a nasty angry man, so why should we listen what he has to say? you know who else was a nasty angry man? hitler. so if you agree with mcdanger you love hitler.

10/25/2006 5:21:23 PM

^ I don't care if you say extra shit like that to be funny, just at least answer the question.

10/25/2006 5:21:49 PM

I had some discrete math, but no formal debate classes. I am fully aware that I don't stick to the strictest debate rules, and probably commit fallacies daily, though I try not to.

10/25/2006 5:24:06 PM

partially, but i havent taken a full lenght debate course or anything. i couldnt rattle off every logical falacy or anything, but i can see the flaws in debate often.

i think everyone gets caught up now and then and will break a rule (or just have a generally illogical argument), but i think a good bit of the people in here are better than the population at large.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : thanks for proving my point though you angry little nazi ]

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : i also had some discrete math, easy class]

10/25/2006 5:24:48 PM

I don't necessarily mean exposure to debate itself, but any kind of formal logic. Some sort of discrete math KINDA counts.

10/25/2006 5:25:46 PM

people just say that cuz formal logic is often taught in debate courses (probably predominently in those courses in HS). i didnt think reading the links in SB counted.

10/25/2006 5:27:27 PM

Fallacies and logic are methods for formal debate, though if some people weren't just retarded here, we wouldn't need to go so far as to require them.

Hell, I think we could better serve ourselves by just wholesale ignoring the people here that really have yet to add much significant to the section. We all know who they are, just don't give in to the temptation to try and "win" against them. You can't defeat an idiot.

10/25/2006 5:28:06 PM

10/25/2006 5:28:41 PM

I took a straight-up logic course sophomore year at App. Meh. I've honestly learned more in the SB.

10/25/2006 5:29:13 PM

one wouldnt logically believe that to be true.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : watch me generalize based on the worst posters!]

10/25/2006 5:29:58 PM

On the other hand, I'm curious how many people could reason properly given some basic logic problems. I'd write up a quiz or something, but I'd have no way of knowing whether people cheated or not so it'd be worthless.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:33:37 PM

you could just post one for our own edification

10/25/2006 5:39:57 PM

Is there any interest in me doing this? See it seems to me that the people who have no background wouldn't even attempt it.

I might write it up into a little anonymous web form, and post the results here. Any interest?

10/25/2006 5:41:23 PM

http://www.begriffslogik.de/logiktest_en.html

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:49 PM. Reason : those are a pain to read, particularly with the colors.]

10/25/2006 5:42:26 PM

That could work.

I'd rather write it up using symbols like P and Q, however. I think that'd be an easier, more clear cut way to see if people understood the underlying concepts without [words].

10/25/2006 5:49:18 PM

yeah i understand shit like that but cant handle it with the way they wrote it.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:50 PM. Reason : theres a bunch out there though]

10/25/2006 5:49:42 PM

I was planning on making one that wasn't tricky at all, just to see if the underlying concepts were understood.

I really suspect a lot of people here have no idea what's up with logic, but I hear a lot of people bickering over what's logical and what isn't.

I think I'll come up with something short about it.

10/25/2006 5:53:34 PM

i sure as hell know that B's are A's that are not B's that are C's and D's...

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : All mcdangers are nasty angry men. Hitler was a nasty angry man. Is mcdanger hitler?]

10/25/2006 5:54:22 PM

Quote :

"The result of your logictest 22 of 26 answered questions are correctly answered! Congratulations! You are a natural or used some helpers!"

10/25/2006 5:57:59 PM

yes

22 of 26 on the test

10/25/2006 6:01:32 PM

gg -- I'm putting together a little thing atm that I'm going to try to get TSB members to take. Gimme a sec! Wana make sure I'm not making any errors in the quiz I'm writing because boy would that be embarassing.

10/25/2006 6:02:23 PM

Your mom loves my logic poll.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 6:07:23 PM

i got 22 as well actually, rather odd coincidence

10/25/2006 6:12:34 PM

I took the following course as a freshman at Hamilton College:

PHI 240 Symbolic Logic
A study of formal systems of reasoning and argument evaluation.

10/25/2006 6:26:31 PM

Okay here it goes. When you take this, PM your answers to me. I won't reveal your score, what I'll do is compile some data about how people in general did.

(gotta type this up, I scribbled it on paper):

True/False section (label the following assertions as true or false):

For 1-3, state whether the arguments are logically valid (mark true), or not (mark false).
Premises appear above the dotted line, conclusions below the dotted line.

1)

If p, then q
q
---
p

2)

If it is raining, I am wet.
I am wet.
----------
It is raining.

3)

If pigs can fly, democrats will get elected.
Pigs can fly.
------------
Democrats will get elected.

4) Is #1 logically sound?

5) Is #2 logically sound?

6) Is #3 logically sound?

7) p implies q if p is false.

8) p implies q. If q is false, then p is false.

9) If both p and q are false, then p implies q is true.

Multiple Choice Question:
10) "If p then q" is the same as saying:

a) p and q
b) p or q
c) p or not q
d) not p or q

Free answer (write the negation of the following premises):
11) All dogs are mammals.
12) If Jones is happy, then he will kiss his wife.

10/25/2006 6:30:32 PM

I've had exposure, mostly in high school philosophy but also some in courses here at State. I generally try to apply the principles here in the Soap Box, but sometimes I slip up and other times I just want to have fun.

10/25/2006 6:54:40 PM

I have a BA in Philosophy, so yeah, I have some formal training.

I've encountered an ungodly amount of P's & Q's over the last 4 years.

10/25/2006 6:56:34 PM

Maybe it's just me, but the "p" and "q" system just seems like an awful way to teach the subject. That probably has to do with my complete and utter lack of a math part of my brain.

10/25/2006 7:00:05 PM

It's a good way, in my opinion, because you're trying to teach a form (not any particular content).

10/25/2006 7:01:25 PM

Logic doesn't remotely apply to politics.

10/25/2006 7:59:14 PM

^^It has its merits, but I can't imagine it would hurt the process any to speak of to just use fairly obvious and simple statements. P's and Q's are hard to follow for some of us with a less mathematical frame of mind, and I think everyone understands things like it's raining/I'm wet, etc.

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it. Just doesn't sit well with me.

10/25/2006 8:42:14 PM

1. false
2. false
3. true
4. not sound
5. not sound
6. not sound

What's going on with 7-9? Teach me!

10/25/2006 8:52:35 PM

Poor jones wife =(

10/25/2006 8:59:00 PM

I have had some p and q training, but not a whole lot.

10/25/2006 9:26:55 PM

no reductions McDanger?

(A /\ B) \/ (-A /\ C /\ D) \/ (A /\ -B /\ C /\ D)

and

(-A /\ -C) \/ (A /\ -B /\ -C)

10/25/2006 10:22:13 PM

i don't know the little symbols, but if you put it in some sentence form, then i can get your answers. i got all the answers right on the logic quiz link that wasn't in symbolic format.

(because i've never had any formal training in symbolic logic)

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 10:28:37 PM

^^ Nah, just wanted to toss out some things that I saw as typical TSB problems.

^ I avoided symbols? Aren't most of those in technical english?

10/25/2006 10:41:27 PM

ha. actually i just looked at the first one, and missed where the question was in that one.

the rest seem fine. and upon looking at the first one again, i see what you did.

(i thought before that

p
---
q

was something in itself in symbolic notation i wasn't familiar with.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 11:43:13 PM

Ahahaha no, but you could say that's the form of many religious arguments.

10/25/2006 11:46:27 PM

If political and social issues could be broken down to formal logic, we could replace our leaderships with computers.

But, it can't. Things like the ethics of certain types of killings (is it okay to kill 3 little babies to save 7 adults lives?) can't be decided on logically, in a satisfactory manner.

10/26/2006 12:38:41 AM

That's why we need a thinking computah

10/26/2006 12:41:09 AM

Quote :

"If political and social issues could be broken down to formal logic, we could replace our leaderships with computers. But, it can't. Things like the ethics of certain types of killings (is it okay to kill 3 little babies to save 7 adults lives?) can't be decided on logically, in a satisfactory manner."

These issues should be considered in a reasonable, systematic way.

All ethical theory involves logic quite heavily, in fact. The funny thing about ethics, however, is that two people can have equally reasonable opinions and arrive at separate conclusions.

10/26/2006 12:51:56 AM

Quote :

"If political and social issues could be broken down to formal logic, we could replace our leaderships with computers."

Logic still has a place. Let's say with abortion, logic can't tell you when life begins, but the arguements over it can either be logical or illogical.

10/26/2006 1:01:57 AM

Kris is right on the money about that. Anything that's real is rational, I think the quote goes.

(go go Hegel)

10/26/2006 1:02:39 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=reuters-nbacomputers&prov=reuters&type=lgns

By jove, that seems unethical, now doesn't it!?

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 1:29 AM. Reason : -]

10/26/2006 1:28:34 AM

Quote :

"All ethical theory involves logic quite heavily, in fact. The funny thing about ethics, however, is that two people can have equally reasonable opinions and arrive at separate conclusions."

That was basically my point. Often times, arguments simply break down to personal feelings/biases/experiences that are equally logical when taken in the context of the person's experiences. This is the bigger problem, I think, not necessarily people not being able to see or understand logic (logic itself is pretty simple, common sense type stuff).

I think GrumpyGOP's style of arguing is a good example of this, in that most people here like him and respect him, even though they may disagree with him on certain issues. He states clearly why he believes in something, and precisely at which point an argument breaks down to his own gut feeling (like with abortion or death penalty), which is reasonable.

Then you have other people who cling to beliefs, thread after thread, without ever altering their views in light of new or different info. These types of people suffer from cognitive dissonance for various different reasons, and all the logic in the world isn't going to help them.

10/26/2006 2:04:00 AM

If my experience meeting wolfwebbers tells me anything, it's that their relationship to me and any description involving "like and respect" are disparate.

But yeah, I do at least attempt to the point where it all breaks down to my personal bullshit, but I can see how for most people here that isn't exactly a positive, just because their whole motive is to avoid personal bullshit altogether (whether or not that's possible, which is a different question). Gamecat is an example of that. I don't tend to think that Gamecat's way of looking at things is one that will create solutions, but it certainly appears to me to be opposed to any system that allows for the inclusion of personal bias/gut feeling/whatever.

For the most part, though, I agree with moron's point, and McDanger's about ethics from earlier, if only because I have on many occasions in my own experience run into situations where I agreed completely with the premises set forth by my "opponent" (or vice versa) and arrived at an opposite conclusion, even through means that appear to follow quite naturally. Such disparity is a product of various experiences as often as not, probably more so. I tend to incorporate as much as an inevitability of human discourse, as total detachment from any discussion strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.

10/26/2006 2:56:19 AM

Quote :

"That was basically my point. Often times, arguments simply break down to personal feelings/biases/experiences that are equally logical when taken in the context of the person's experiences. This is the bigger problem, I think, not necessarily people not being able to see or understand logic (logic itself is pretty simple, common sense type stuff)."

Well that's in ethics, though. And if you start to really get to the bottom of meta-ethics, I think it becomes more and more clear what the correct choices in fact are (this is a sticky issue).

Most other disciplines are more clear cut than that, but that doesn't mean your arguments shouldn't at least employ logical validity. If you can show the other person's argument isn't valid or sound, you've shown good reason not to endorse it.

Quote :

"He states clearly why he believes in something, and precisely at which point an argument breaks down to his own gut feeling (like with abortion or death penalty), which is reasonable."

Gut feeling isn't a bad way to show somebody's own opinion, but when you're arguing that everybody should endorse that opinion, then some form of rational argument is required.

Quote :

"Then you have other people who cling to beliefs, thread after thread, without ever altering their views in light of new or different info. These types of people suffer from cognitive dissonance for various different reasons, and all the logic in the world isn't going to help them."

This is not a feature of logic, but of the subject in question.

Quote :

"For the most part, though, I agree with moron's point, and McDanger's about ethics from earlier, if only because I have on many occasions in my own experience run into situations where I agreed completely with the premises set forth by my "opponent" (or vice versa) and arrived at an opposite conclusion, even through means that appear to follow quite naturally. Such disparity is a product of various experiences as often as not, probably more so. I tend to incorporate as much as an inevitability of human discourse, as total detachment from any discussion strikes me as unlikely in the extreme."

I think the "indeterminate" nature of these arguments come from hidden premises present in our world views (at least in ethics). I tend to think that agnostics and atheists do a better job coming up with more basic steps of reasoning behind ethical points because they have no higher power to appeal to for authority.

10/26/2006 8:25:20 AM