44.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
Enahs
 
44.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
 Enahs
 
No, it is logically fallacious because you have created a false dilemma with the first premise of your syllogism. If the premise is fallacious then so is the syllogism.

Only because you make assumptions, which this kind of assumption is not valid in traditional logic. The assumption that I only know of the choices for you are to be gay, a woman or a transsexual is just as valid as the assumption of shared knowledge that we both know we have. Even though it is clearly a wrong assumption, it is a perfect legitimate assumption if one is to make assumptions. It again stands as a valid argument from a logical perspective, because you can not assume I know of any other options.

Logic, by it's very nature, when correctly applied can only be true. When it appears to suggest something that is empirically not true there is a fallacy at work somewhere in the syllogism or argument.

No, both wrong. I can give you hundreds off examples in the history of science that perfectly logical, by the strictest definition of logic, laws and rule and ideas where stated. And they held true until we gained further knowledge to disprove them; things that are irrelevant with respect to the syllogism as you wish to call it. Or logic is based on our knowledge, or knowledge is very limited; therefore the results of our logical deductions are very limited.

If logic does not exist then neither does our understanding of the universe.
Wrong, logic is a result of our understanding of the universe. Gravity was witnessed long before it was logically deduced that all objects in close proximity to the earth fall to the surface of the earth if no outside force is involved. The logical definition and formalization of gravity does not change the fact that for thousands of years before the theory of gravity came around, everybody knew if you threw something up it would come back down.

I honestly do not understand how a scientist could say that logic is merely a construct. Your job is to discover the unchanging and eternal in our universe. That unchanging and eternal is logical. I do not understand how you could be exposed to the logic of the universe everyday and then say that there is nothing inherently logical about the universe, and logic is just a subjective construct of man.


Because we, as man are interpreting what we see in the universe. For us to understand it, we must define this thing called logic. The universe does not follow logic, or definition of logic follows the universe. It is a subtitle but major difference. And because of this difference, we can not truly conclude that logic leads to the ultimately true and correct answer, it only leads us to the true and correct answer based off of what knowledge we have, and what assumptions we made (even if the assumptions where 100% correct, it can still lead to the wrong answer). If we do not truly know “what” is happening, but we base our logic off of “it”, then or logic is flawed. Because we are so far from even beginning to truly understand the universe, it is therefore most reasonable to assume that our logic is flawed. That does not mean we ignore it, it is the only way we know to continue to gain more knowledge. But taking it as truth, fact and correct without question is just plain wrong, and what leads to bad science.


And only because logic is still a developing field. We are talking about the very edge of pure reason, afterall.

It is a developing field because our understanding of the universe is still developing, and our understanding of the universe is what dictates the principles of logic. If tomorrow we discovered a completely unknown to us spectrum of the electromagnetic field, it does not change how the universe functions, only how we understand and perceive it. Or logic must then adapt to understand it; the universe does not adapt so we can understand it.

Try studying an ancient language sometime. There's a reason why Latin and Greek

If you are currently a student of languages then I might be incorrect. It was illogical for me to say that if I have no clue what you do for a living, fun or education.






Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
This comment was edited on Jan 1, 21:12.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
2.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
3.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
5.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
6.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
7.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
4.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
8.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
9.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
10.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
12.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
13.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
21.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
11.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
14.
Dec 31, 2006Dec 31 2006
16.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
19.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
24.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
25.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
28.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
     Re: No subject
29.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
      Re: No subject
26.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
31.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
     Re: No subject
36.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
     Re: No subject
38.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
      Re: No subject
42.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
       Re: No subject
46.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
        Re: No subject
59.
Jan 2, 2007Jan 2 2007
         Re: No subject
60.
Jan 2, 2007Jan 2 2007
          Re: No subject
61.
Jan 2, 2007Jan 2 2007
           Re: No subject
18.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
32.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
15.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
17.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
20.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
22.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
23.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
27.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
30.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
33.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
34.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
35.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
     Re: No subject
37.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
     Re: No subject
39.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
      Re: No subject
40.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
       Re: No subject
41.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
        Re: No subject
43.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
         Re: No subject
 44.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
          Re: No subject
47.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
           Re: No subject
49.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
            Re: No subject
51.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
             Re: No subject
48.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
           Re: No subject
56.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
         Uh...
58.
Jan 2, 2007Jan 2 2007
          Re: Uh...
45.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
53.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
50.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
52.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
54.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007
57.
Jan 2, 2007Jan 2 2007
55.
Jan 1, 2007Jan 1 2007