Do we worship logic?

[walfin]

Reasons I can't stand some NTs:

1) They worship logic and discount faith
2) The "I'm enlightened/intelligent and you're a peon" attitude
3) The immature ones can be real arses

Friends, INTPs, fellow planet dwellers,

Do you think we worship logic?

Statements 2 & 3 are to be ignored.

[garak]

It's certainly highly important. I'd say "worship" is basically accurate (especially in comparison to most people) although a bit hyperbolic... maybe.

But we still fall victim to logical fallacies and emotional whims all the time.

[Helios]

Logic is Supreme, isn't a logical (ie universal, there are exclusions) statement. So Logic is my tool is the only logical choice.

[LastRailway]

Logic is Supreme, isn't a logical (ie universal, there are exclusions) statement. So Logic is my tool is the only logical choice.

Precisely.

[Helios]

Precisely.



yeah, I cracked that nut on thr openning moments of my rum and ambien hit. So I caant exactly posture thst id esd duvh s clever retort on my prrt. Just 'well duh' kinda deall :stupid:

[Archvile]

You could have just asked are you T or F...

[Ferrus]

Eh, something of a formalist myself.

[djm]

I voted the second option - Logic is my tool.

Anyone picking the forth option is deserving of some stick.

[Jasz]

i think it's overrated.

[Ferrus]

Of course I may flag up here that what exactly is entailed by logic is variable - depedent on the initial conditions set by the axioms, hence the logic of maths is often distinct from formal logic which itself has differentiations (predicative etc.) and other diverse forms of logic such as the Indian logic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic).

Perhaps an intuitive sense of rationality and a broad adherence to some sort of vague scientificality - although I think a purely objective scientific observation is a pipe-dream, nonetheless a pragmatist concept does exist, c.f. Charles Pierce - influences my thoughts.

[djm]

Of course I may flag up here that what exactly is entailed by logic is variable - depedent on the initial conditions set by the axioms, hence the logic of maths is often distinct from formal logic which itself has differentiations (predicative etc.) and other diverse forms of logic such as the Indian logic system.

I often cogitate over the effect that moving away from axiomatic papers has had on the ability of science to produce paradigm shifts.

[Denzien]

Logic is my tool - I am supreme.

[sorabji_66]

Friends, INTPs, fellow planet dwellers,

Do you think we worship logic?

Statements 2 & 3 are to be ignored.



We like to think we do when by ourselves.

When we don't get our own way and are getting stressed, it turns into the ugliest babyish sucky tantrum on the planet.

Not violent, but very emotionally ugly.

Been there, hopefully not again too soon.

[LastRailway]

Anyone picking the forth option is deserving of some stick.

I'm more surprised of the person that picked the first option, actually. I can understand how someone would chose the fourth, either as a joke or even seriously, but I have a hard time to believe that there are people that don't accept that logic has limitations as a tool, and the human brain limitations as to perform using in every case pure logic.

[Anonymous]

What's with all these anonymous polls lately?

Oh, and logic is my tool.

[Ferrus]

I often cogitate over the effect that moving away from axiomatic papers has had on the ability of science to produce paradigm shifts.
Well, in some sense, it is the natural tendency of the human to huddle in a societal grouping. Paradigm shifts, if Kuhn is to be believed, usually only emerge when a position becomes repeatedly and sustainably empirically unsustainable, which is a rather slower rate of progress than is perhaps to be had. And actually I don't think this applies just to science, even the world of the arts is dominated by certain theories and perspectives which prospective academics huddle around. Truly, there is something to be said for the indepedent scholar.

Science in itself uses I think a pragmatic form of logic, actually quite separate from formal logic or even maths which is at best a 'filing cabinet' or short hand system. Such pragmatism I think befits the essential utility of science - to aid the human manipulation of the physical enviroment and to gain information about it in a systematised way within the limits of human cognition. One of Hilbert's problems is the axiomatisation and systematisation of physics, which has not been achieved, perhaps something that reveals the limitations of logic, although Hilbert himself was an intuitist, I have not studied this enough but perhaps his aim was more a specific physics axiomatisation rather than an attempt such as the Principia Mathematica.

And lest we forget Godel.

[walfin]

You could have just asked are you T or F...
Och... Only the last one is a real F answer.

The rest can all be given by Ts. In fact, I have heard T-types IRL (at least they told me they were. None were INTPs though, I don't think I know any INTPs IRL) give both the first and third responses.


Well, in some sense, it is the natural tendency of the human to huddle in a societal grouping. Paradigm shifts, if Kuhn is to be believed, usually only emerge when a position becomes repeatedly and sustainably empirically unsustainable, which is a rather slower rate of progress than is perhaps to be had. And actually I don't think this applies just to science, even the world of the arts is dominated by certain theories and perspectives which prospective academics huddle around. Truly, there is something to be said for the indepedent scholar.
Off-topic part:
I attended a seminar the other day (more a discussion group, there were <20 people in the room) and I was struck by how stuck in the clouds academics were. They could debate endlessly about something that really is happening in the world as if it was hypothetical. I left with a really uneasy feeling.

Logic was supreme to them, indeed.

[NightCrawler]

What's with all these anonymous polls lately?

Oh, and logic is my tool.

o.O ... You post anonymously, so what's you're beef.

[Thevenin]

The term "worship logic," particularly in the context of INTP's, is inappropriate. "Worship" implies an irrational submission (almost a subordination of the self) to, in this case, logic. So what we have is an irrational rationality, where the first term belies the second. Clearly, logic is a tool with which many INTP's are adept. One does not worship a tool unless one is really weird. Of course, many of us are regularly accused of being weird.

[fripping]

it is only logical that you worship my tool. it is supreme, like a big beef burrito from taco bell.

yes, in case you were wondering sometimes i do feel ashamed of myself.

[pangolin]

Worshiping logic would be illogical, therefor the only reasonable choice is the second.

oh, and evidently the proper spelling of worshipping is also illogical.

[Llewellyn]

Logic is overrated.

Don't know exactly why...

[notjeffgoldblum]

I think it's just misunderstood.

[walfin]

I think it's just misunderstood.
The logic, or the worship of it?

[notjeffgoldblum]

The logic. If you are using it correctly there is no need to harbor feelings for or against it.

[Ferrus]

Someone told me that Hilbert was not an intuitionist - yes I realise that. However, one of his problems was the axiomatisation of physics, which for what it is worth has been abandoned as an impossible goal, and thus served as an example.

[Methofelis]

Logic is for my tools.

[fresh]

Logic seems like an applied practice that's cold and robotic. Dependable, but variables can quickly stack up leaving us frustrated by blind spots and misunderstandings.

Strangely, a lot of what motivates the careful application of logic is an emotional yearning. A calculator can crunch mad numbers yet has no desire to do so until it's commanded to.