Awareness of Logic Fail??

[Detective Conan]

[MENTION=1313]Detective Conan[/MENTION] I see what you're saying, it depends on how you interpret it. I was trying to distinguish a purely logical argument from one that has a certain, well, emotional appeal. Not purely emotional, but enough so that it is not purely logical because logic, as described above, is a sort of operating system for us to argue with set rules and one of those rules is to not use emotions in your arguments.

Thus, I felt like making a distinction by using the word rational because I feel that you can use some subjective material in your arguments and still not be irrational. Opposite of irrational=rational but you could use a different word like reasonable or something but that doesn't sound as good as rational.

Oh okay, with that in mind your original statement makes more sense. I'm not sure why people think that logic = without emotion. As humans, it's really difficult for us to act without some sort of emotion behind the action. Then again, that's another topic for another thread, so I'll just stop here.

 

[not sure]

True but I want to point out that just because an arguments premises suck doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true unless some other argument disproves that conclusion. I haven't seen this on this thread but I just think it's interesting to think about.

Yes. You are right but the argument would be unsound and therefore could be easily discredited by a skilled debater. Lawyers do it all the time to put doubt in the mind of the jury. Isn't logic cool?

 

[Detective Conan]

True but I want to point out that just because an arguments premises suck doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true unless some other argument disproves that conclusion. I haven't seen this on this thread but I just think it's interesting to think about.

When I was researching the logical proofs behind the existence of a Creator, I found that the bolded part isn't entirely the case. With certain subjects, there are plenty of sound proofs (logically speaking, not taking into account if you think the existence of God is BS or not) that contradict other proofs. In these subjects, a counter proof doesn't seem to be enough to discount another conclusion.

 

[Peppermint]

Here's the thing. Humans are rife with cognitive bias, and are often unaware.

Some go as far as to postulate that humans are unable to make decisions purely on logic, and that cognition and emotion are not separate.

See also the Logic of Feelings

The contribution of the feelings-as-information hypothesis to our understanding of the role of
affect in judgment and decision making is discussed. Basic principles and regularities in how
affective feelings guide judgments and decisions are then identified. Based on these principles
and regularities, it is argued that the role of feelings in judgment and decision making may be
more adaptive than has been assumed in most academic circles. This adaptivity transpires (a) in
the variety of goal-relevant signals that feelings convey, (b) the flexibility with which feelings
are interpreted, (c) the judgmental properties of feelings, and (d) the selectivity with which feelings
are invoked. It is speculated that affective feelings may tap into a separate system of judgment
and decision making with its unique strengths and weaknesses.

 

[bickelz]

When I was researching the logical proofs behind the existence of a Creator, I found that the bolded part isn't entirely the case. With certain subjects, there are plenty of sound proofs (logically speaking, not taking into account if you think the existence of God is BS or not) that contradict other proofs. In these subjects, a counter proof doesn't seem to be enough to discount another conclusion.

Well, arguments for a creator are rather silly. Either it does or doesn't exist. I really don't see a point in trying to make that a logical argument. Existence just is or is not.

I'm not sure why people think that logic = without emotion.

I was looking at fallacies the other day an appeal to emotions was listed as a red herring fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I don't really see any emotions in sound logic. I think emotions are extremely important but they're not universal so there was a bunch of T's a long time ago that said they didn't want to deal with them and made it against their laws.

 

[grt$5vb]

[MENTION=1834]sandra_b[/MENTION] I do it, too. I guess I should word it better for my thinkers...

 

[894tt3h9]

@sandra_b I do it, too. I guess I should word it better for my thinkers...

[MENTION=4015]purplecrayons[/MENTION]

yeah I should probably do that too but I just don't! I figure they'll get what I mean. Apparently not, as evidenced by this thread haha

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Maybe I should go ahead and clear this up. I'm the one who said "I don't see the point in...." and "I don't understand why...." And I say those phrases ALL the time. And time and time again Princess Anastasia will always explain to me what the point is or try to make me understand, even though I already KNOW. It's just that I really, truly don't give a fuck and don't want to either see or hear what's going on, especially when it comes down to conflicts that I find to be unnecessary even if other people feel they are necessary.

I figured that I could end all the speculation of why someone would say those things as a figure of speech. Now you know.

So, you're saying you don't see the point/don't understand, even though you do see the point/do understand?

Wha-?

Or are you right now saying you do see the point/do understand when you say you don't see the point/don't understand, when you actually don't see the point/don't understand, but are now using the phrase "I don't see the point/don't understand" in a way that was different to what is actually meant by saying you don't see the point/don't understand?

I DON'T SEE THE POINT/DON'T UNDERSTAND D:

 

[Detective Conan]

Well, arguments for a creator are rather silly. Either it does or doesn't exist. I really don't see a point in trying to make that a logical argument. Existence just is or is not.

Regardless whether or not they're 'silly,' they're sufficient proof to back up what I was say in regards to your post, that being a counter argument for a conclusion isn't always satisfactory for denying the plausibility of the original claim.

I was looking at fallacies the other day an appeal to emotions was listed as a red herring fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I don't really see any emotions in sound logic. I think emotions are extremely important but they're not universal so there was a bunch of T's a long time ago that said they didn't want to deal with them and made it against their laws.

I'm fully aware of the appeal to emotions fallacy. You misinterpreted what I meant in that post. I merely meant to suggest that, as humans naturally have emotions, their logic will have some emotional backing. This does not mean that the premises nor the conclusion will be emotionally charged, but rather the reasons for creating the proof will have emotion behind them. For example, if people were apathetic toward everything, why would they bother trying to prove something at all? That was the point I was getting at.

I also find it odd that the first fallacy an appeal to emotion is listed under is a red herring; there are many other fallacies that it fits much easier into. The formal definition of the red herring (also known as the smoke screen) fallacy is this: An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue. Again, you could force an appeal to emotions into this category, but I think it's probably a better fit as a Rhetorical Device: used to influences beliefs or attitudes through the connotations of words.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Logic is over-rated, it hasn't even been proven. Worst shit since science.

Faith and Emotion rule supreme. /~\

 

[grt$5vb]

[MENTION=1834]sandra_b[/MENTION] I could say, "I just don't get it," but that could still mean I need more explanation. I guess I mean, "That concept just doesn't fit in with my moral code..." I'm never gonna remember to word it logically in the moment, though. Passion overrides logic. For me, anyway. Once I'm made aware of things I try to stop, think & apply them, but... I haven't had desired results with that, either.

 

[894tt3h9]

@sandra_b I could say, "I just don't get it," but that could still mean I need more explanation. I guess I mean, "That concept just doesn't fit in with my moral code..." I'm never gonna remember to word it logically in the moment, though. Passion overrides logic. For me, anyway. Once I'm made aware of things I try to stop, think & apply them, but... I haven't had desired results with that, either.

[MENTION=4015]purplecrayons[/MENTION]
Yeah I pretty much throw logic out the window in most conversation. I don't take the time to properly consider my words. I am not very technical in my speech or in any writing. Too much effort! I just say what I feel.

 

[e-vagrant]

The difficulty with people who cannot segregate their emotions from their logic is that they project this problem onto other individuals.

You can make a very concise, clear and logical point; they will then interpolate their personal biases onto that information and respond: "This is entirely based upon your own subjective biases" because their own analysis is based on this very weak criteria.

The information is logical and concise; the failure is in their ability to disentangle their own biases from their own thought process. Accusing others of failure is simply an indication of their incompetence.

Jim, I'd like to let you know I generally despise internet communities -- and that I registered here for the sole reason of echoing your point.

I have found also, through interactions with others, that those who least believe in objectivity are also those least capable of it. Almost without exception. And the fact that such individuals are blissfully oblivious to this relationship is the most comical (if not the most frustrating) thing. Such egocentrism! The reasoning, as I'm sure you know, is that because they themselves have never experienced something, it must not exist. I always compare it to lacking a sense: if you were born blind, what reason have you got to believe in vision? Yet, as little reason as you have to believe in it, you have even less right to claim it doesn't exist.

I'm rambling. The bottom line is that I found what you said to be a startlingly accurate and refreshing insight -- and insights such as these are almost always ignored or overlooked. This thread so far has been an excellent example of this. Surprising in a community of so-called introverted intuitives...

 

[grumbles]

@sandra_b I could say, "I just don't get it," but that could still mean I need more explanation. I guess I mean, "That concept just doesn't fit in with my moral code..." I'm never gonna remember to word it logically in the moment, though. Passion overrides logic. For me, anyway. Once I'm made aware of things I try to stop, think & apply them, but... I haven't had desired results with that, either.

What sort of feedback are you seeking when you make a statement of this sort? Or better said, what feedback/questioning would allow you to alter your stance on the issue/open your consideration of the issue, yet not violate your moral code? It sounds like the OP is providing Te style data perhaps which is insufficient (?)

If you said "I cant see the point in discussing this..." but the other person highlighted the emotional impact of the logical idea upon the harmony and well being of others, would you be willing to continue the discussion? I guess what I am looking for is the "hook" which would open up your consideration of the idea again.

(No judgment implied at all, so please forgive if this seems offensive in anyway, I am actually very interesting in communication across mbti types, is all)