You INTPs Don't Know What The Hell Logic Is Anyway!!

[CreativeChaos]

THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT! :devil:

[mgb]

wow, 97 posts short of a nickname

[Division56]

*boob and divi sic Zedo on CC*

*Zedo humps CC's leg*

[Edmond Zedo]

"nooooo, infp cooties!"

[CreativeChaos]

*boob and divi sic Zedo on CC*

*Zedo humps CC's leg*


Ohhhh!!!Ahhhhh!!!More!!!! A little higher!!! Yeah! That's it!!!!

[CreativeChaos]

"nooooo, infp cooties!"

You should BE so lucky as to get MY cooties!!!! :devil:

[mgb]

I love how this thread degraded in one post. Poor CC, can't stay/keep anyone on topic.

[CreativeChaos]

I love how this thread degraded in one post. Poor CC, can't stay/keep anyone on topic.


Originally posted by Songbird:
Lust is therefore, simply a phenomenon that we experience, not logic.

:p

Those two are just no fun anymore. You should see the mess their making of the "Are INTPs prone to be Religious Thread!" :angry:

[Dunearhp]

If you tried to run your life by logic alone, you would stall. There wouldn't be any reason to do anything.

All of our goals have to come from emotions, hormones or neurotransmitters or something.

Hmm. I'm hungry. Gotta go.

[songbird36]

THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT! :devil:

Statement 1 is false - logic can exist outside nature (because it can operate on false premises and reach false conclusions based on those false premises)

Statement 2 is true

Statement 3 is false

Statement 4 is true

Statement 5 is false (inductive logic can prove inherent existence, it can't prove necessary truth - only deductive logic can do that)

[songbird36]

To clarify why we started discussing logic on the religion thead CC.

Zedo and others claimed that the existence of God can *only* be established by logical argument, and (further) that logical argument leads to the non-existence of God.

That's why it was necessary to examine what was meant by "logic".

[CreativeChaos]

I love how this thread degraded in one post. Poor CC, can't stay/keep anyone on topic.

:p SEE????

[CreativeChaos]

To clarify why we started discussing logic on the religion thead CC.

Zedo and others claimed that the existence of God can *only* be established by logical argument, and (further) that logical argument leads to the non-existence of God.

That's why it was necessary to examine what was meant by "logic".


Ahh! Thankyou Songbird. It's just that I've seen the question debated so many times, I thought there should be a thread for that special question alone.

[mgb]

If you tried to run your life by logic alone, you would stall. There wouldn't be any reason to do anything.

All of our goals have to come from emotions, hormones or neurotransmitters or something.

Hmm. I'm hungry. Gotta go.

Which are logical explainations for why we do things.

You don't spend your time thinking about it, it just happens. But let's keep this in the right thread.

[mgb]

:p SEE????

That was in no way your doing missy.

[songbird36]

Ahh! Thankyou Songbird. It's just that I've seen the question debated so many times, I thought there should be a thread for that special question alone.

I don't see why it's necessary to have a separate thread about it when there are in fact definitions of the term in dictionaries and also in any respectable philosophy text.

[CreativeChaos]

Which are logical explainations for why we do things.

You don't spend your time thinking about it, it just happens. But let's keep this in the right thread.

Yeah, but what IS the right thread! Thread topics keep degenerating into what is and isn't logic! You can't start a philosophy and spirituality thread without it denerating into this!

Why not get the matter settled once and for all. Then we can start talking about "real" stuff. (Total INFP point of view of course. Ha!)

[CreativeChaos]

I don't see why it's necessary to have a separate thread about it when there are in fact definitions of the term in dictionaries and also in any respectable philosophy text.

So why is there so much debate on exactly what it is?

[mgb]

Yeah, but what IS the right thread! Thread topics keep degenerating into what is and isn't logic! You can't start a philosophy and spirituality thread without it denerating into this!

Why not get the matter settled once and for all. Then we can start talking about "real" stuff. (Total INFP point of view of course. Ha!)

The thread we are using is working just fine. Or not, depends on your position at the table I suppose.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yeah, but what IS the right thread! Thread topics keep degenerating into what is and isn't logic! You can't start a philosophy and spirituality thread without it denerating into this!

You know, there's a reason for that.

[CreativeChaos]

The thread we are using is working just fine. Or not, depends on your position at the table I suppose.

Okay, by that do you mean the INTP God Thread, or this one? Because this logic discussion happens on a variety of threads.

[cjs55]

Oddly enough, I am supposed to be doing homework for my logic course right now.

[mgb]

Okay, by that do you mean the INTP God Thread, or this one? Because this logic discussion happens on a variety of threads.

You can't make a discussion happen, they just do.

[songbird36]

So why is there so much debate on exactly what it is?

I don't know the answer to that CC.

I have defined it (using dictionary based definitions) a number of times in the thread.

I think Booyalab has also (she apparently is studying philosophy or doing some papers on it).

So I'm not sure why people are still arguing about what it is. I think the argument is more about what things it does, and does not, apply to.

[CreativeChaos]

You know, there's a reason for that.

Yeah! You're all just a bunch of INTPs! :dont: (Yeayy! A new emoticon! Cool!)

[mgb]

So why is there so much debate on exactly what it is?

Because there are definitions and applications.

For INTPs (and I may be wrong) definitions are just tools in a strategy.

[songbird36]

Because there are definitions and applications.

For INTPs (and I may be wrong) definitions are just tools in a strategy.

Hey - I've just found myself agreeing with you!

We're arguing about what logic applies to, not what it is.

I'm arguing it doesn't (and can't) apply to everything. Others disagree.

[CreativeChaos]

Hey - I've just found myself agreeing with you!

We're arguing about what logic applies to, not what it is.

I'm arguing it doesn't (and can't) apply to everything. Others disagree.

But it seems in your attempt to argue what it applies to, you guys are also arguing over what it is.

[mgb]

But it seems in your attempt to argue what it applies to, you guys are also arguing over what it is.

Maybe, to the untrained eye. hee hee

Some people are trying to say what it is, more of a tactic as a means to an end than really caring what the definition is.

In all honesty, the definition is completely irrelevant. The lines in the sand are the more important thing. Some people get that, some don't.

[CreativeChaos]

Maybe, to the untrained eye. hee hee

Some people are trying to say what it is, more of a tactic as a means to an end than really caring what the definition is.

In all honesty, the definition is completely irrelevant. The lines in the sand are the more important thing. Some people get that, some don't.

Okay, I give up. :huh: It just seems so off topic, and then I can't follow and comment. I WAS interested in whether INTPs believe in God or what, but Geeze! This dividing of the lines is reminisent of SJs nitpicking details.

Now I understand the statement about INFPs not really caring about logic. I care, but not to THIS degree. Blah! I'll just stay out of the way. Just trying to help divert a seeming going off topic problem. :blink:

[Warrior413]

THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT! :devil:

You just did that to get easy posts. :p

[songbird36]

Maybe, to the untrained eye. hee hee

Some people are trying to say what it is, more of a tactic as a means to an end than really caring what the definition is.

In all honesty, the definition is completely irrelevant. The lines in the sand are the more important thing. Some people get that, some don't.

How on earth can you say the definition of logic isn't important or that we need one we can all agree on?

How can we sensibly debate what logic does or does not apply to, if we can't agree on what logic actually is?

Sigh..

[mgb]

This dividing of the lines is reminisent of SJs nitpicking details.

Only if it fits into the strategy, a tactic again. Too be honest, there isn't much nitpicking about details on this site. At least by the Ps.

In fact, I would say that overall we completely disregard other's strategies as being secondary to our own, I mean, if they were better we would have used them right?

[mgb]

How on earth can you say the definition of logic isn't important or that we need one we can all agree on?

How can we sensibly debate what logic does or does not apply to, if we can't agree on what logic actually is?

Sigh..

Who cares what logic is? We can get 10 definitions on what it is and never have everyone agree to a single one of them.

It's not about who is right in the debate, it is about having the debate. It's about my strategy being better than yours. That's it.

When the thread dies, we move on to another topic, tweak our strategy, and off we go.

Start looking at the big picture.

[Miss Anthropic]

wow, 97 posts short of a nickname
Is that like 3 cards short of a full deck? Or nice house nobody home? Or a few pecks short of a bushel? Or her stairs don't go all the way to the top? 8O

[Miss Anthropic]

Who cares what logic is? We can get 10 definitions on what it is and never have everyone agree to a single one of them.

It's not about who is right in the debate, it is about having the debate. It's about my strategy being better than yours. That's it.

When the thread dies, we move on to another topic, tweak our strategy, and off we go.

Start looking at the big picture.
Arguing for the sake of argument. The argument is the forest, the subject the trees....forget about the trees, they don't matter---is that the N? because if that's the N, I must be more X in the SN (ooops, maybe I shouldn't admit that here....) I mean, I care about the trees!

[Falling Star]

THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT!

I wish I understood what the hell all of that means. About deductive logic though, it's damn amazing how it gets our spaceships to their destinations if it doesn't prove anything. Very impressive indeed. Math sucks anyway, I toast to the idea that deductive logic can't prove anything. I think lots of school children will love you CC.

[earwax]

I WAS interested in whether INTPs believe in God or what...

OK - Define what you mean by "God".

[mgb]

Arguing for the sake of argument. The argument is the forest, the subject the trees....forget about the trees, they don't matter---is that the N? because if that's the N, I must be more X in the SN (ooops, maybe I shouldn't admit that here....) I mean, I care about the trees!

Let's say I own a logging company...that likes to clear cut (win arguments hands down, which will never happen on this site)...does it really matter what the trees are. I mean it does because I have to be able to mill the logs and whatnot, but really it's all about the clearcutting.

The trees are somewhat important, but it's more about the tools you have to use to cut the trees down. Obviously, if the trees are giant sequioas, you would have to use a different machine than a spruce tree (tactics), but the goal is always the same.

I can't say I am a-interested (haa haa new word) in any topic (example, I like certain types of trees more than others). But my interest gets turned off when it's time to go, or "go time" as I like to call it, hee hee.

[Johnny]

We're arguing about what logic applies to, not what it is.

I'm arguing it doesn't (and can't) apply to everything. Others disagree.I'm one who disagrees. I think logic can apply to everything. In my opinion, it needs to.

In religion, at least in Christianity, there is a soul within each one of us that drives us, that tells us in our gut what is right and what is wrong, why we are here and what we should shoot for in our life here. I don't think, say, EZ's exploration of human instincts should be supressed at all. Lust is, at least for men who've made it to puberty, very much something we experience. It does drive us. It was identified by religion way before science started looking for it.

Lust has existed even before science. So has the world. The human race did not perish without science, and it won't perish when science becomes old-hat and persecutes us for offering new views that challenge it.

Science can't offer that life exists on other planets right now, and sometimes I wonder if it's because of science's limitations - that it's blinded us to life flourishing everywhere in all things, that we really are connected to everything and there is no boundary line, no real space between us...

[booyalab]

My posts in the religious thread, starting from this one, http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=58354#post58354 explain my position. (just reiterating it here so everyone who needs to read it, does read it)

[CreativeChaos]

THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT! :devil:

OK! Guys! THIS thread is NOT about religion. It is DEFINING logic. ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! Geeze!!! :angry: jk

[CreativeChaos]

You just did that to get easy posts. :p


Nyaa,ehh! :p

[booyalab]

OK! Guys! THIS thread is NOT about religion. It is DEFINING logic. ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! Geeze!!! :angry: jk
lol, my post in religion was about logic. Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of it, shall we? Important points are in bold for your convenience.

Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), meaning reason) is the study of arguments. Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments. Arguments express inferences—the processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones. As such, of particular concern in logic is the structure of arguments—the formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones, where "formal" means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves. Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference, including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination. It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge.

As a byproduct, logic provides prescriptions for reasoning, that is, how people—as well as other intelligent beings, machines, and systems—ought to reason. However, such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself; rather, they are an application. How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields, including cognitive psychology.

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, including reasoning about probability and causality. Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes. The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric. Rhetoric, concerned with persuasive arguments, would currently be seen as contrasted with logic, in some sense; as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings.

[CreativeChaos]

lol, my post in religion was about logic. Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of it, shall we? Important points are in bold for your convenience.

Whoa! Impressive Booyalab!!! :) I retract my original statement. Please continue. :D

[booyalab]

Whoa! Impressive Booyalab!!! I retract my original statement. Please continue.
Thanks, though I didn't think I needed to...I guess I'll reference your initial post.


THE NEVER ENDING LOGIC DEBATE

Logic is not a human construction.

Alogic is not illogical.

Irrational is the same as Non-Rational

Deductive logic can't prove anything.

Inductive logic proves everything.

Now I'm right, You all are wrong! This is IT! :devil:

1. Philosophical stance. Akin to which came first: math or people. On the one hand, (edit: deductive)logic can't extend past language, which is our own device (edit: and inductive logic doesn't necessarily extend past our perception...). But on the other, it's rules can't be altered. You might be able to say humans created the circumstances in which logic is permanent as long as the circumstances stay the same.(another edit: or you could say that we DIDNT choose to have language/ think the way we do...in which case it wouldn't be a human construction for that reason) It doesn't matter though, since we're not going to change.

2. That's true by definition :) ironically

3. It's not necessarily false, because a rationale doesn't have to be logical. But whether it is true depends on your definition of the words... and/or it's common usage.

4. it proves something is true by definition, but the conclusion can't prove the validity of the assumptions

5. false, inductive reasoning only tells you what's probable

[Johnny]

OK! Guys! THIS thread is NOT about religion. It is DEFINING logic. ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! Geeze!!! :angry: jkLogic isn't a religion?

[CreativeChaos]

Logic isn't a religion?

:rofl: It IS a religion Johnny. It's the religion of INTPs! Hee!

[Architectonic]

I don't necessarily believe that human logic is absolute. But that doesn't mean it isn't very useful in a limited sense.

[Dman]

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of it, shall we? Important points are in bold for your convenience.

Patronizer!