I also showed that logical and reasonable are synonyms of each other. Do I seriously need to provide you with the definition of "synonym" as well? — Harry Hindu

Yes, I saw how you cherry-picked the definition you used also. I surveyed a number of other definitions available online that did NOT offer that simplistic equivocation.

Every time you use logic to show how logic isn't useful, you defeat your own argument and strengthen mine — Harry Hindu

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic? I'd like you to quote me on that or withdraw the claim. If the question is "what do elephants eat?" and unenlightened says 'well they don't eat logic.' that does not amount to a rejection of logic. Again, you don't have an argument of your own, but only the negation of a ridiculous straw man.

I notice you have not attempted to substantiate your previous claim that am confusing logic with delusions, but here you are with another invention. It's rather sad, and a waste of time, because we cannot possibly resolve anything while you are arguing against your own fantasy.


Again and more strongly than ever, the impression is that you are not engaging with what anyone here is saying, but using our posts to conduct an internal argument of your own, presumably against some non-rational aspect of yourself that you find difficult to reconcile yourself to.

if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Harry Hindu

I see now, it is a cry for help. But alas "Reason is and ought only to to be the slave of the passions." Hume's insight would be a liberation for you if you let it.

Yet I made the same statement here and you didn't say anything of the sort.

It's only after unenlightened started his bandwagon that you decided to jump on. — Harry Hindu

Actually, I just grew tired of what was obviously a one-sided discussion. @unenlightened obviously has more patience than me.

So, how's the conflict resolution going, chaps? Is all that truth and logic doing it for you? — unenlightened

:smile:

As has been already mentioned... we first have to agree on what it is that we're talking about. It seems clear to me that there are different senses of the same term being used by different individuals. Namely, the terms "logic" and "truth".

Of course, that alone sorely needs correcting.

Maybe it should be up to creativesoul to clarify what he meant by "best to believe regarding some subject matter". — Harry Hindu

When faced with competing valid explanations for what's happened and/or is happening, it is always best to err on the side of the one with the fewest unprovable premisses, the most falsifiable/verifiable claims, and the fewest entities necessary in order for it to have the explanatory power that it does - whatever that may be, and/or amount to.

The fewer the terms necessary for adequate explanation the better. The fewer falsehood, the better. Etc.

That's what's best to believe at all times regarding any and all competing explanations for the same events.

If you have a problem with logic "presupposing some truth", then why did you presuppose that there are two opposing opinions and that there is a best one to believe? — Harry Hindu

I have no such problem. Logic does presuppose truth. That's not a problem unless we forget to 'keep it in mind', so to speak.

It seems to me that logic doesn't presuppose some truth, you do...(the premise). — Harry Hindu

You do realize that those are not mutually exclusive options, right? Logic does. I do. You do, as well.

No problem.

That's the way it is.

Name a method of seeking what is best to believe that doesn't presuppose that there is something best to believe - a truth. — Harry Hindu

"A truth"???

:confused:

I do not talk like that. Have not. Would not, unless I was intentionally and deliberately temporarily adopting another's use/sense of the term "truth".

On my view truth IS correspondence with/to what's happened and/or is happening. So, no...

I'm not using the term "truth" as a means for referring to some true thought, belief, and/or statement thereof that is best to believe. I use the term "opinion" or "statement" to pick out opinions that consist of statements. They are true(or not) if and only if they correspond to what's happened and/or is happening.

Which is the best(out of the group) is the question, and more importantly, is there a universally applicable and reliable method for determining which competing explanation(conflicting statements) is true, if any are...

I'm puzzled by the lack of understanding regarding some stuff talked about heretofore. For example...

It's by definition alone that seeking "what's best to believe" when faced with competing explanations of the same events presupposes a remarkable and significant difference between the explanations.

How else could they be competing? Or better... conflicting, because that's the terminology invoked in the OP.

You act as if there's something wrong with presupposing that not all explanations are on equal footing; are well-grounded; are true; etc.

They are not.

That's a factual statement Jack, and the presupposition is a true belief!

:wink:

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic? I'd like you to quote me on that or withdraw the claim. If the question is "what do elephants eat?" and unenlightened says 'well they don't eat logic.' that does not amount to a rejection of logic. , you don't have an argument of your own, but only the negation of a ridiculous straw man. — unenlightened

I know... right?

I have made serious allegations about some logic(paraconsistent, I think is what they call it?), and yet Harry has neglected those altogether. Weird.

It does not follow that I reject logic wholesale, or that I find no value whatsoever in logic and our use of it.

I've spelled out - as clearly and simply as I know how - the limits of logic that I'm aware of(or at least that I think I'm aware of).

Here's where empiricism and logic fails...








The conflicts that matter most are the moral/ethical ones...

What ought we do given the way things are.

First...

Spell out the way things are. Second, discuss what we ought do as a means to effect/affect the change(s) we would like to take place. In politics, such talk of morality and/or being moral/ethical is shunned. There is a collective aversion to the word and/or topic itself. It's an immediate emotional reaction akin to watching the observable effects of someone who says that something is making their skin crawl...

Eeeeww!!!

Such a shame.

In simple terms...

The elected officials' job is to act in ways that increase the quality of everyday American lives whenever it is possible to do so. It is not in the best interest of everyday Americans to be forced to choose between the health of themselves and/or their loved ones and/or economic survival - collapse - during a pandemic that was caused by circumstances completely beyond their own control...

Push 'em out there... make em work. Some will suffer more than others. People will die. The cure cannot be worse than the disease.

Covid19 is not the only disease eating American politics and life from the inside out. It's certainly not the worst. The worst is making the 'novel corona virus' even more deadly than it needs to be.

Ok...

Hi ho, hi ho, it's back to work I go....

You people are great listeners...


Insert Mr. Green here...


I want that emoji back!!!

I was just reading something by Mead that shed some light on this topic for me, as it offers a perspective on specialization and universe of discourse. Certainly, we can see in this thread that different universes of discourse are colliding, in particular one that is extremely logo-centric, versus some others that are less focused, more generalized. If this same topic were discussed by two logo-centric thinkers, presumably the conversation would have assumed a much different path.

Mead's concept of the social mind adds an interesting dimension; my summary is in the thread How did consciousness evolve?

What ought we do given the way things are.

First...

Spell out the way things are. Second, discuss what we ought do as a means to effect/affect the change(s) we would like to take place. — creativesoul

I'd like to flag up the assumption built into your recipe, that I think is exposed in the conflict we have been having, that is always a central concern of my own philosophy - identification.

This 'we' - a lot of the time it can be taken for granted, 'we' agree already who 'we' are.

We are rational, honest and good. We are ready to subsume our personal interests to the collective interest. We cooperate. We are Americans.
_______________________________________________________

I am logical. (identification)

Therefore I have the best possible and only possible equipment for reaching the truth.

Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are illogical, dishonest, or deluded.

Therefore I have already resolved any conflict.
________________________________________________________

You cannot argue with a virus. And you cannot argue with the illogical, the dishonest, or the deluded.

To resolve a conflict with corona, or with Hitler, or whatever we are calling the unreasonable enemy this week, I.S. or Daish, or terrorism, or the Republican Party, you just have to completely destroy them.

Only 'we' can resolve a conflict, because only 'we' have the common ground. So the very first step must be one of generosity, of inclusivity, the admission that the other is not other, and has a point.

We are rational, honest and good. — unenlightened

So here's the fundamental difficulty. I, as a rational honest and good person, am perfectly willing to admit you also to that status, and then we can talk things over and see where we differ and where we agree and so on. All those practical things that @fdrake listed come into play, sources can be compared etc. But if you are not prepared to admit me to that status as well, then we will be talking at cross purposes at best. Without the equality and mutuality of equality. 'we' does not exist. There is not a common language in which common sense can be expressed and prevail, for all that it may appear that there is.

Yes, I saw how you cherry-picked the definition you used also. I surveyed a number of other definitions available online that did NOT offer that simplistic equivocation. — Pantagruel

You mean like how you cherry-picked your source on dialectic logic and how you cherry-picked this one small part of my post to respond to while ignoring the rest?

Actually, I just grew tired of what was obviously a one-sided discussion. unenlightened obviously has more patience than me. — Pantagruel

Yet your patience was renewed once unenlightened started bandwagoning.

I grew tired of trying to reason with you long ago, so the discussion became more of a way of showing reasonable readers just how hypocritical you are.

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic? — unenlightened

If you don't have a problem with logic being the answer to the question as posed in the OP and then clarified as referring to what is true, then you have just made it more apparent what your actual problem is.

You have a political beef with me, which was actually apparent in when you inserted yourself into the discussion I was having with Pantagruel. You claim that I was being authoritarian, but you know I'm a libertarian. There was nothing authoritative about it. It's an internet post on a philosophy form that can be ignored or argued against. I don't know where you get such ideas other than you just can't stand me because of our political differences so you just want to assemble a bandwagon of hypocrites to pick a fight in a thread that has nothing to do with politics.

When faced with competing valid explanations for what's happened and/or is happening, it is always best to err on the side of the one with the fewest unprovable premisses, the most falsifiable/verifiable claims, and the fewest entities necessary in order for it to have the explanatory power that it does - whatever that may be, and/or amount to.

The fewer the terms necessary for adequate explanation the better. The fewer falsehood, the better. Etc.

That's what's best to believe at all times regarding any and all competing explanations for the same events. — creativesoul

Wow! Thanks, creativesoul. So this means that you like my one-worded reply better than fdrake's post that contains so many entities and presumed truths and all that stuff you just said?

I do not talk like that. Have not. Would not, unless I was intentionally and deliberately temporarily adopting another's use/sense of the term "truth". — creativesoul

What I was referring to is this:

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul

So you want to know which method is useful for determining which of two opposing opinions is true. My answer was simply "Logic", which seems to be in line with the type of answer you are looking as described in your previous statement above. It is only when I pointed out your hypocrisy that the shit hit the fan in this thread.

You do realize that those are not mutually exclusive options, right? Logic does. I do. You do, as well. — creativesoul

Think of logic as the rules of a computer program. The rules are applied to input to provide output. The input (premise) is supplied by the user of the program, not the program. The conclusion is the output. If you have a faulty program (faulty logic) then the output will be incorrect.

We write programs to solve problems. Given the right program you can solve your problem.

Here's where empiricism and logic fails...

The conflicts that matter most are the moral/ethical ones... — creativesoul

Without empiricism how would you be aware of happiness and suffering? Logic is necessary make the distinction between the two. Empiricism is necessary to find the causes of suffering and happiness. Logic is necessary to plan paths to avoid suffering and maximize happiness using what you found using your senses. Empiricism and logic are the only means of determining what is true in ethics and outside of ethics. The imperfections lie in our deep, fundamental premises that we start with, the very first input that produces erroneous output that we then use as input for other programs to solve other problems.

So it seems to me that it comes down to what is ethics and morality. Can you solve that problem with the very thing that you are questioning the nature of? Does the same problem apply to logic?

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic?
— unenlightened
If you don't have a problem with logic being the answer to the question as posed in the OP and then clarified as referring to what is true, then you have just made it more apparent what your actual problem is. — Harry Hindu

Fucking hell Harry! Your logic is a fucking joke. You are totally irrational. You make shit up left and right and you cannot follow the simplest argument because you don't even read properly. As I just said, because you have no charity, there is no talking to you at all. There is nothing between us to be resolved, because you are inventing my position and defeating it and I literally have nothing to say in the matter. That is the extent of your authoritarian arrogance. Not only is there no common ground between us and no common language, we are not even on the same planet; you are off in a little world of your own where you are very clever and everyone else is a bit slow. Enjoy.

So are we to take this post as true simply because you said it, or do I get to disagree? How authoritarian.

↪unenlightened So are we to take this post as true simply because you said it, or do I get to disagree? How authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

You get to disagree. But you actually have not disagreed. If you want to disagree, say something different. A question and a random insult is not disagreeing, merely disagreeable. But anyone else can see very easily that it is substantially true because it actually quotes you traducing my argument in order to pretend that I am being political (and you of course are being logical). It's hilarious in fact.

You get to disagree. But you actually have not disagreed. If you want to disagree, say something different. A question and a random insult is not disagreeing, merely disagreeable. But anyone else can see very easily that it is substantially true because it actually quotes you traducing my argument in order to pretend that I am being political (and you of course are being logical). It's hilarious in fact. — unenlightened

It's not a fact that you brought terms like "authoritarian" and "Trump" into a discussion that wasn't about either? Did I not show how my initial post in this thread wasn't authoritarian if someone could have just ignored it? You claim to see what others will see, but I don't see it.

More rhetorical questions. And very silly questions too. Of course in a discussion one brings in terms that were not in the op. Terms like "logic" for example. And no, an authoritarian does not cease to be an authoritarian because people ignore him. So yet again your rhetoric doesn't even disagree with what I have said. You claim logic, but you cannot construct an argument of your own or understand one when presented with it. Make an argument Harry, I dare you. Or link to an argument you have made in this thread. So us this all powerful logic you possess.

Be well Harry. I'm not interested in continuing with you.

The program you're using is faulty.

Make an argument Harry, I dare you. — unenlightened

I would settle for "Address the actual words of someone... anyone".

We are rational, honest and good. We are ready to subsume our personal interests to the collective interest. We cooperate. We are Americans. — unenlightened

You're right. That's an assumption, and probably not a safe assumption. Best to get open public agreement prior to anything else...

Especially here in America at this time.

if you are not prepared to admit me to that status as well, then we will be talking at cross purposes at best. Without the equality and mutuality of equality. 'we' does not exist. — unenlightened

OK. This intrigued me as it seems like a thread common to many disputes. Can you be more specific about the practices which constitute 'admitting one to the status of an equal'? I'm particularly interested in how you avoid simply enjoying your own echo chamber (by declaring all opposition as simply not treating you as an equal); also in how you treat those who are not your equals - you wouldn't expect to be treated as an equal contributor to a discussion about all topics regardless of your expertise on the matter, so what approach delimits such interactions (again without simply declaring opposition to be non-expert)?

Say we have common agreements about some set of ideas {x} and we can thus discuss the disagreement about the nature of subset {xi, xii}. What's to stop us from simply declaring that we can only have a reasonable discussion with those who agree with us about set {xi} ("those who believe in set {xii} are simply not worth arguing with " ). So we limit our discussion to those who agree about set {xi}, and we happily engage in our disagreement about sub-subset {xia, xib}. Until we decide that those who agree with set {xib} are simply beyond the pale and cannot be reasonably engaged in discussion...

I'm particularly interested in how you avoid simply enjoying your own echo chamber (by declaring all opposition as simply not treating you as an equal); also in how you treat those who are not your equals - you wouldn't expect to be treated as an equal contributor to a discussion about all topics regardless of your expertise on the matter, so what approach delimits such interactions (again without simply declaring opposition to be non-expert)? — Isaac

Well you treat me as an equal by quoting what I say, and asking me for expansion, justification an so on. I treat you as an equal, hopefully, by taking your comments seriously too. Are you part of my echo chamber? I don't think so, and I don't think any of the other contributors to the thread are either. We treat each other as equals by admitting our fallibility. I could be wrong about this... you might know more than me... let's try and find out.

So we are always in an echo chamber to the degree that we are speaking the same language, and we are both humans of the 21st century. So here we are discussing conflict resolution, and my first suggestion is that we need the common ground at least of a general agreement of the topic at hand. Not that we cannot discuss other things in other threads, but here we are discussing conflict resolution.
Hopefully we can have that much agreement so that we can then disagree about how to resolve conflicts.

Because I am a generalist, most topics here have a contributor who has more expertise than me, but where I think I can sometimes make a serious contribution is at the intersection of philosophy and psychology, and particularly matters of identity. But if I have some expertise, I still treat others as equals by laying things out clearly, and giving explanations and references as appropriate, and by being willing to reconsider in the light of the discussion.

Say we have common agreements about some set of ideas {x} and we can thus discuss the disagreement about the nature of subset {xi, xii}. What's to stop us from simply declaring that we can only have a reasonable discussion with those who agree with us about set {xi} ("those who believe in set {xii} are simply not worth arguing with " ). — Isaac

Well there's nothing to stop us. But if someone does that habitually, they are probably not going to get on very well in a forum like this. This is a good game, that i like to play, to put my ideas out there and see how they stand up in public. Sometimes I have to go quiet and reconsider. But It is not even a problem. Serious philosophers of mathematics do not want the likes of me dragging their discussions down to a schoolboy level all the time, and should tell me to butt out whenever they want.

Nobody has to debate with another, but if you debate, then debate as equals until you have had enough. Equally entitled to speak, to argue to contribute, not equally knowledgeable or equally right. One can treat a 3-year-old as an equal, it's a matter of respect of the individual, mainly.

So, back to the subject matter at hand...

In the beginning of this thread, I asked if there was a universally applicable method for knowing which competing explanation is best when we are faced with a set thereof.

fdrake posted a very relevant list things to do pertaining to the OP. Particularly, that post was chock full of common and good advice for helping an audience decide between conflicting opinions. I want to revisit that post and the other one when the right time comes. I've been a bit distracted, and it deserves more attention than I currently have to offer it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would go waaaay out on a limb here(insert sarcastic tone) and say that many, if not most, of us would agree that logic is part and parcel to any reasonable methodology for establishing which explanation is best(if there is one that is, for they may very well be on equal footing, depending of course upon the events being explained). Logic is the means we have to follow another's argument. Choosing between conflicting statements sometimes requires understanding a rather nuanced opinion. Logic is of irrevocable importance here as well.

However, logic is inherently unreliable - incapable is better - when used in an attempt to discriminate between true and false statements of belief(which is precisely what all conflicting opinions amount to). Carefully considering which conflicting opinion is best, includes being able to know which is true, if any of them are. All else being equal, a true statement is more valuable, if for no other reason than our already knowing that true beliefs are the most reliable means available to us for successfully navigating the world.

I mean, logic is extremely reliable when used for certain purposes. It's capable of helping us to achieve understanding of another's position - at times. In can help us to understand nuanced arguments. It has all sorts of uses and benefits. It's use can also be a detriment at other times.

One thing is certain:Being able to reliably discriminate between mutually exclusive statements in order to determine which - if either - are true is not one of things that logic can do. The capability to discriminate between true and false statements is always needed for establishing which conflicting statement is best. Logic is inherently inadequate for that part of the task at hand.

:meh:

I like Un's invoking identity...

I'm going to take it a step further in line with the OP.

Identify the mutually exclusive statements of opinion and you will be talking about the problem(the conflicting opinions). That is step one.

Conflict resolution begins by identifying the conflict.

The current - real life - conflict is about whether or not common everyday people ought be forced to choose between the health and safety of themselves and their loved ones or inevitable financial collapse - as a result of the pandemic, which is a result not of their own doing...

Sure... some will die, and some will suffer horribly. Many will suffer more than others. Acknowledgement alone is not enough though, especially coming from a world leader. When those who are the least secure, the least privileged, the least fortunate, the least lucky... when those people suffer far more than need be, and it is at 'the hands' of those who have the most, then we have a BIG problem.

The suffering is not all the same. Some will suffer financially and get by just fine. This pandemic may may a mere bump in the road to many... perhaps most. For others however, this pandemic could become the sure path to unnecessary financial and physiological(personal health) ruin. Such is the case when we're in the middle of a worldwide pandemic and far too much economic concern dominates the discussion table and we lose sight of what must be done before we make people go back to work and/or everyday normal life.

Defer all debt, until we have made it as safe as we can. Treat all debt like it's been in a time warp... a wrinkle in time. In the meantime, until we've done the best - everything we can do - to make the world safe from the serious threat of covid19 currently dominating the face of the planet, offer everyone without the necessary means to live the means to do so. This will come at a financial cost. Where will the money come from?

Who cares? We find the money for all sorts of things that are far less important than this. Pressed, it's simple. Figure out what it will take to do this and then take that amount from those who've benefitted the most from the global economy, or take away their ability to ever use it - and the consumers(ahem... victims) - again.

Such is the risk one takes in executing tremendous power over common people, being forced to care about their lives and/or livelihoods. When faced with a ten million dollar dent in a one hundred million dollar personal stash or the suffering and death of all those who could have been saved by using that money...

Choose to save the people.

This pandemic has shown some of the inevitable problems that globalization brought to bear in terms of the sheer power that foreigners have over everyday citizens lives and livelihoods.

It's certainly showing what many find most disconcerting and/or troubling about the pandemic and it's effects/effects.

Well you treat me as an equal by quoting what I say, and asking me for expansion, justification an so on. I treat you as an equal, hopefully, by taking your comments seriously too...
We treat each other as equals by admitting our fallibility. I could be wrong about this... you might know more than me... let's try and find out...
if I have some expertise, I still treat others as equals by laying things out clearly, and giving explanations and references as appropriate, and by being willing to reconsider in the light of the discussion.. — unenlightened

Yes, but all parties here have arguably done all those things (except admitting fallibility - I don't see much of that from either party). I'm not supporting Harry's position here (I disagree with it quite strongly in fact) what I'm interested in is that way in which generalities about rules of engagement seem to massively underdetermine. Everyone agrees with them, and yet think their interlocutors are the ones not adhering to the rules, it's always the other party being unreasonable. So 'the rules' do not, in fact, manage to specify anything useful, they're still nebulous enough for everyone to consider themselves to have met the required standard and if we could magically enforce them (by means of self-reporting) it would make virtually no difference at all to the progress of most disputes.

One can treat a 3-year-old as an equal, it's a matter of respect of the individual, mainly. — unenlightened

This may just have been a rhetorical device on your part, but it's so rare to hear this kind of attitude and it's one close to my heart so I wanted to acknowledge it with a "hear, hear!"