Logic

[The Feral Underclass]

NB: I changed the example of objective logic


People always say to me "It is my oppinion, and I have the right to it". It really pisses me off. It seems like an escape mechanism for when your argument collapses. I then answer, "yes you are, but this is why you are wrong", the debate usually ends there with someone becoming completely enraged by my apparent "arrogance".

I am an Anarchist. I believe Anarchism is the most logical conclusion of class struggle and have objective arguments to back it up. Therefore I believe I am right. Then I meet someone from the Hare Krishna who feels exactly the same about his beliefs and believes he has objective arguments to back them up.

Look at logic. We have subjective logic and then we have objective logic. Can we agree that no matter how much you assert your subjective logic, it can never become objective.

Take subjective logic:


I support Liverpool
Michael owen is a great footballer and plays for liverpool
Liverpool will win the FA cup

This is subjective logic. Because you support liverpool and because Michael owen plays for liverpool and is a good player does not mean Liverpool will win the FA cup. The final conclusion is based only on your own emotional view of liverpool and of michael owen. This is left open for intepretaion and therefore and create a seperate subjective view.

Objective logic:


All men are mortel
I am a man
I am mortal

This is objective logic. These are all facts, which when asserted together create a conclusion, based on evidence with which you can see touch and understand. It is fact that men are mortal, it is a fact I am a man, therefore you can conclude that i am mortel This argument is not left open for interpreation.

Does this then mean, that if you have seperate assertions based on evidence with which you can see touch and understand, and with which refutes all other arguments based on the same objectivity, then when put together it makes fact, and therefore is right?

[Nic8]

Your example is wrong. I think you don`t understand the meaning of carnivore. A carnivore is something that only eats meat. It is possible to eat meat and not be a carnivore. An omnevore is something that eats meat and plants. So your logic should be like this:

Only carnivores and omnivores eat meat.
Not all birds are carnivores or omnivores.
So not all birds eat meat.


I agree about your objective logic. But I don`t think objective logic can come through sense perception, as you claim at the end of your post. You can`t really understand things by seeing and touching them. How can you be sure that what you see and touch is actually true? Your objective logic has to come from reason alone, outside of sense perceptions.

Edit:
For those of you who missed the begining of this thread and find thist post a bit confusing:

The Anarchist Tension made used an example of objective logic that was shown to be wrong, corresponding to my discussion of birds eating meat above. After reading this, he/she changed the example to a correct one about mortal men.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

People always say to me "It is my oppinion, and I have the right to it". It really pisses me off. It seems like an escape mechanism for when your argument collapses. I then answer, "yes you are, but this is why you are wrong"



An opinion cant be incorrect or correct, its an opinion

[The Feral Underclass]

An opinion cant be incorrect or correct, its an opinion

That is the purpose of this thread. I am saying that you can use objective logic to determine whether your oppinion is right.

Take the example I gave of objective logic. That conclusion is not left open for intepretation. It is fact and can not be altered.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I disagree, an opinion by definition cannot be incorrect or correct.


e.g. it is my opinion that the yanks are bad people.


neither correct or incorrect its just how I feel.


Facts are not opinions. Therefore if someone is refering to a fact and then saying its an opinion then that person doesnt really mean opinion, he/she just doesnt know the right word to use.

[The Feral Underclass]

But people assert oppinions as fact, and believe them very very strongly. Nazi's had the oppinions that Jewish people were sub human and exterminated 6 million people fighting for that oppinion. They believed it to be fact.

When you assert that yanks are bad people, you must believe it to be true, otherwise why would you say it? your assertion however is incorrect and merely subjective. How can you possible know this for fact. You have never met every single american in the world to be able to make such a statement. In fact there are many americans who are nice people. Look at the people on this board, they are nice people, and the are american.

If I say all americans are evil because of the war in iraq, i am using subjective logic

Starting wars is evil
Americans started a war
americans are evil.

This is a subjective view. i am asserting that all americans started the war when it is absolutly not true.

People in power start wars
George Bush is in power
George bush started a war.

Objective view. I looked at america, saw how decisions to go to war are made, looked at who is in power and then concluded based on fact that it must be george bush who started the war. Which in fact it was.

oppinions can be wrong if the are not based on fact.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

From what I read in your posts I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand what an opinion actually is.

If what you are saying is true then the word opinion would not exist.

[Svartvit]

Logic is something you use when mathematics and other "exact" sciences fails. In example, Zenons paradox:
A man is going to run from point A to point B. It takes the man 1 minute to run half the distance. The mathematics will say it will take 1/2 a minute for the man to run half of the remaining distance (I o w, half the half distance). It will then take him 1/4 minute to run half the remaining distance (I o w, half the half of the half distance). This will, pure mathematically, continue for an eternity since there aren't a limit for how low a number can be.
That leaves the paradox. If the "countdown" continues forever, will the man ever get to point B?

[The Feral Underclass]

You are correct I am misusing the word opinion.

o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
[b]1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

Do you agree that my hypothesis is still valid if the word opinion is subsitituted for belief. I do!

be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Logic is something you use when mathematics and other "exact" sciences fails.


Logic though, can fail on many occasions. Take the classic "Tortoise and Hare" paradox.
In this example, a hare can run 10 times as fast as a tortoise. The tortoise, however, gets a 10 km headstart. They both run in a straight line, in the same direction, indefinitely.

Obviously, the Hare overtakes the Tortoise... But does he?

We will say it takes the hare a hundred minutes to run the 10 km.
In this time, the tortoise has crawled only one km.
The hare then takes ten minutes to run the next km.
By this time, the tortoise has advanced another 100m.
The hare takes a minute to run 100m...
And the tortoise remains 10m ahead.

This situation logically continues to infinity - without the tortoise ever being passed. Logic fails!

Opinions are important; they are completely valid. Most situations have two diametrically opposed viewpoints attatched to them; "objective logic" can be used to substantiate neither. In this case, opinions - whether backed up by fact or not - cannot simply be refuted.

Finally, to return to an earlier example;



People in power start wars
George Bush is in power
George bush started a war.


How about this?

People in power start wars,
George Bush is in power,
In a democratic system, George Bush is in power because the public voted for him; he represents their views,
George Bush started a war,
The voters started a war,
George Bush is evil,
Americans are evil.

- Objective logic???

[I don't support this view myself!!!]

[redstar2000]

I very much share TAT's frustration with people who fall back on the "it's my opinion & I have a right to it" defense.

It's a kind of "anti-argument" that implies that real knowledge and certainty about anything is impossible.

Whenever someone uses it, that's usually an excellent sign that they have neither logic nor evidence to support their assertions.

At it's worst, it's a declaration of mental incompetence.

Why would someone want to do such a thing? That's really what I don't understand.

Sometimes, I wonder if rational thinking "pushes the envelope" for us humans. It's so hard and requires so much effort that we constantly want to fall back on a few "easy opinions" and let matters rest there.

Doing that "in the real world", of course, can lead to fatal errors. But even in the "realm of ideas", a false opinion can have, sooner or later, dire consequences.

The patriotic 3-generation military family that greets their returning kid in a "transfer tube" (new name for body bag) has suffered the consequence of a "false" opinion.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Svartvit]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 19 2003, 02:24 AM


Logic is something you use when mathematics and other "exact" sciences fails.


Logic though, can fail on many occasions. Take the classic "Tortoise and Hare" paradox.
In this example, a hare can run 10 times as fast as a tortoise. The tortoise, however, gets a 10 km headstart. They both run in a straight line, in the same direction, indefinitely.

Obviously, the Hare overtakes the Tortoise... But does he?

We will say it takes the hare a hundred minutes to run the 10 km.
In this time, the tortoise has crawled only one km.
The hare then takes ten minutes to run the next km.
By this time, the tortoise has advanced another 100m.
The hare takes a minute to run 100m...
And the tortoise remains 10m ahead.

This situation logically continues to infinity - without the tortoise ever being passed. Logic fails!
Well, that's another example of Zenons paradox. The thing is, the hare will get to the turtle and probably not get stuck for an eternity in the realm of time. That's the logic part. And that's also the true part.

[praxis1966]

Svarvit & CotR: Here's the problem with both of your examples. Firsthand observation will tell you that both examples cannot occur in nature according to your descriptions. I think we can all agree on that. The problem is your mathematics are wrong, and not TAT's logic. On the other hand, it is true that one can never know every variable with definate certainty. This is why I don't put any stock in differential equations. Ultimately they appear to me to be a way for mathematicians and statisticians to titillate themselves intellectually.

Take for example the population of wolves within a given area versus the population of rabbits in that same area. Differential equations are used to describe the flux of each. In other words, as the population of wolves goes up, the population of rabbits will go down and vice versa. The correlation this establishes is that there is a direct inverse relationship between the two. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, these equations give a description based on two finite variables to the exclusion of everything else, namely human influence. In this case, I prefer the outlook of chaos theorists when they say that all things exist not within the realm of finite and concrete but instead within a realm of probability.

You see, applying mathematics to logic and rhetoric is an exercise in futility. Even if it weren't, your argument still has little if not nothing to do with TAT's original question. Frankly, I can't believe any rational person would accept the "opinion and I have a right to it" argument. That's just ridiculous.

[Nic8]

Ok, on opinion:

Once an opinion can be proven right, it is no longer an opinion. It is a fact. When you use objective logic, provided all your premises and logic are right, to prove you opinion of anarchy right, you no longer have an opinion that anarchy is right. You know for a fact that anarchy is right.

The person who claimes that they have a right to their own opinion is admitting defeat. They are not presenting any arguments against you any more. They are just stating that they want to hold on to their own opinion and not hold onto fact. They are so strong in their beliefs and opinions that they will not change them, no matter how clear it is that they are wrong.

On The Anarchist Tension's logic about Bush starting the war:

I know Bush did start the war, but the way you put down the logic doesn't prove that he did. Here is why:

Not all people in power start wars. Some people in power get by without starting a war. So your logic should be stated like this:

All wars are started by people in power,
America started a war,
Therefore, the people in power in America started the war.

George Bush is in power in America
Therefore, Bush started the war.

On The Children of the Revolution's logic:

I know you said you didn't agree with this, I am only attacking the logic, not what you said.

This is wrong because the premeses are wrong. George Bush doesn't represent the views of all Americans. He only represents the views of the people who voted for him at the time they voted for him. I can't remember how much of the vote he got and what the voter turnout was, but he represented like 40% of Americans (proably not that high) three years ago. And it possible that his and the people who voted for him views have changed. So Bush is not represented of all Americans, only of those who agree with him.

On Zeno's paradoxes:

I agree completly with Svartvit.

Both examples are pretty much the same thing. They both prove that motion can not exist. Just because we can sense it does not meen that it actually happens. I'll take logic over trusting my senses. My senses tell me that the sun is revolving around the earth, yet that is wrong. Why should I trust my senses anywhere else, especially when it contradicts with logic.

I think because this continues to infinity, it proves that motion is wrong and not logic.

And I know it really doesn't matter, but I don't think their is an "n" on the end of Zeno's name.