The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth

Forums: Philosophy, Logic, Truth, Arguments, Fil
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Often we all have seen around the web as here in the threads of this forum the recursive ad nausea abusive use of these arguments either against Logic or against Truth normally supported in the paradoxes raised in the current models in use as in the arguably epistemological intangibility of Reality concerning the possibility of a valid knowledge construction set...
The point I would like to bring for discussion regarding the attitude presented in the minefield of such arguing addresses the loose/loose situation which these attempts of demolishing a rational advantage in the arguing always confront you with...the intellectual fraud of such methods no less, normally consists in stooping logical arguments, not by attacking a specific model of logic and thus presenting an alternative, but by attacking logic itself while arguing against the opponents premisses, avoiding the need for addressing them, and simultaneously, shamelessly recurring to logic, up to the convenient needed extent by which their argumentation can be build in a perceptible or intelligible manner and presented as an winning alternative...
Such situation as proven its disruptive ability to construct an honest debate and improve the working quality of threads as the availability and willingness to participate on many competent members...
The matter at hand is not a critic intended upon the intellectual competence on any opinion presented in any thread but upon the intellectual cheating attitude present in the low expedient of such technique...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 8,248 • Replies: 30

No top replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You wouldn't experience that so often if you didn't act like an arrogant prick towards everyone.

If you showed a willingness to listen to, consider and discuss someone else's ideas, not just your own drivel, you would find a warmer reception.

Quote:

The matter at hand is not a critic intended upon the intellectual competence on any opinion presented in any thread

That is precisely what it is. It doesn't take much reading through your various posts to discover that with you, reactions such as you describe above are never unprovoked.

For my part, I participate in a2k to discuss ideas, but there is nothing like a good argument once in a while for spice. And you, Fil, never disappoint.
Let's be honest; you give as good as you get. Wink

Just consider the headline of the thread: "The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth". Capitalized words there to imply that logic and truth as you understand them cannot be touched. Kind of reminds me of religious fanaticism...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

(EDITED FROM ORIGINAL POST:) Everyone has there own definitions of "logic" and "truth", and they hardly ever match anyone else'.

And besides, this is the Internet! You're highly unlikely to find anyone who lives up to your standards. While there may be many intelligent and competent people online, there are many many more times that in ignorant and incompetent people.

1 Reply

...this situation is not a novelty but it can be said it became particularly in vogue since the 70´s... it has been called by some, the great democratic leveller of mediocrity...one removes the slightest sign of authority and every opinion (not knowledge any more) is worth the same...then you wrap it in "culture" diversity packets and serve it at tea time with the old aunts included !

1 Reply

@RexDraconis111,

Actually, that's not what I said.
Fil has a way of monopolizing his understanding of what logic and truth is, thinking that he's about the only one around here who grasps it.
He is quick to spot anything he can use to convince himself that he is superior to anyone who doesn't agree with him, which is why this thread coming from him is such a lovely irony.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Ah. Well, that was how I took it, so since I got it wrong, my bad.

0 Replies

...while I may agree or disagree with someone´s opinion I never stooped an argument by attacking logic as its natural instrument, at best, I disagree with the use of it, and I immediately present my reasons, sometimes better sometimes worst...what is being debated here are not the differences in view but a consistent method for not debating at all !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You wouldn't experience that so often if you didn't act like an arrogant prick towards everyone.

Cryacuz, your English improves every month. Congratulations.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Thanks JL. I wish we could say the same for my general attitude.. Very Happy

0 Replies

1 - Although I welcome the attention, I would like to remind people around the place that I and the opinions upon me are not the issue open for debate in here, either people have something to say or justify concerning not the models of logic but logic itself and its shown abusive contradictory usage/critic dichotomy, or they are deliberately intended to derail the thread out of its tracks...

2 - again to emphasise the idea that this is not an issue brought up upon the diversity and usage right on the multiple models which can and should be justified but merely an argument upon the irreplaceable instrument itself without which nothing can be said beyond the level of non articulated opinion...

3 - It seems clear to those for whom the central argument is that Logic at large is flawed one would naturally expect other then logic usage to sustain their opinions...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I've shared my impression of why you seem to end up in your predicament. Likely, some will agree with me and some will not.
I've done my share of arrogant lecturing and I've seen where it leads. I've also tried more respectful approaches to having a conversation, and while that can be very satisfying, it's also fun to tug on people's emotions when they offer me the chance. Perhaps not very nice, but it sure is fun. Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, in your defense I must confess that your charge is applicable to much of what I have said. I am unashamedly opposed to the notion of ABSOLUTE Truth when it refers to any kind of proposition; I do accept it in the Buddhist sense of Dharma, as a metaphor for Ultimate Reality. Otherwise it applies more acceptably to the relativistic and provisional value of propositions (as they meet the demands of pragmatic, empirical and logical standards).
I'm also opposed to the misapplication of Logic as the sine qua non method for the treatment of metaphysical desiderata. Ironicallly, Absolute Reality can only be known relativistically as "portions" of the World in doses of immediate personal experience.
And I guess I'm guilty of being excessively Open Minded in the sense of 1960s So Fil is not all wrong--just rude.

0 Replies

Personalities aside, I must agree with Cyracuz's repudiation of the sanctity of "Logic and Truth". There is sufficient academic argument from celebrated philosophers to support that repudiation without going into the details I have produced on other threads. That is not to dispute the utility of paradigmatic modelling which "scientists" engage in in their attempts at limited prediction and control.

1 Reply

I am glad that this discussion is getting at the actual issues. I believe Fil has brought up an important subject.

0 Replies

@fresco,

It seems clear to those for whom the central argument is that Logic at large is flawed one would naturally expect other then logic usage to sustain their opinions...religion often does that while appealing to faith instead of logic...if nothing else they have the merit of being structurally consistent on their method !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Artists and mystics (and, to a lesser degree, we might include theoretical mathematicians) have found "intuition" to suffice as a "method" for the attainment of their goals. Logic is useful--no doubt--but it's not the end-all of inquiry. Someone is bound to argue that "intuition" is no more than "unconscious" logic. It would be with the "no more than" that I would find objection.

0 Replies

And as Bohr himself said......

Quote:

You are not thinking. You are merely being logical.

1 Reply

As I see it, there are many aspects of logic. First and foremost, it seems to me, logic is a thought process. A process in which conclusions are made on the basis of statements or facts by means of correct reasoning.

It seems to me that when deciding what constitutes "correct" we have to consider the motives and the background of whoever is doing the reasoning.

For instance, if your background includes the conventional belief that consciousness is a product of physical evolution, logic will be restricted by this, to express only what can be reconciled with that belief.
And it is a belief, an assumption we have yet to justify.

In my experience, errors in logic reasoning are fairly easy to identify. The root problem of "The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth" may not be a dispute about the application of logic in itself, but rather a dispute about the base assumptions; the foundations upon which we conduct our reasoning.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes. Logical validity does not equal "correctness".
Consider Clerk-Maxwell's equations for electro-dynamics which were logically based on the concept of an elastic medium called "the ether". The equations still worked even though the existence of "the ether" was later abandoned. This is an example of why the pragmatists (Dewey, Rorty etc) rejected "science" as a quest for "truth", in favour of a quest for "what works".

(BTW That example puts Einstein's celebrated humorous "explanation" of radio....

as a cat with its head in LA and its tail pulled in New York...only there is no cat !

.....in a slightly different light. )

0 Replies

@fresco,

Yes, Bohr was expressing wisdom; it's so wonderful when that happens.
His "thinking" is like the intuitive actions of a talented cook; his being "merely logical" is like the mindless dependence on cookbooks.
In my attempts to be "reasonable" I make statements and while doing so or immediately afterwards try to see if they contain unwarranted leaps or contradictions. But my use of logic is never the way one follows a recipe; it's almost always after the fact.
Now I'm going to read what I just wrote critically.

0 Replies

The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know