Thread: Logic in a nutshell

Watch this. It may help in your arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TO...layer_embedded

Honestly the arrogance of this thread os rediculous! What makes you think you have the authority to tell others they they need to improve their logic?

Originally Posted by sox

Honestly the arrogance of this thread os rediculous! What makes you think you have the authority to tell others they they need to improve their logic?

Logical thinking does.

then we're all doomed.

Originally Posted by sox

then we're all doomed.

By what logic do you arrive at that conclusion?

the logic of the golden carrot

Verzen. Atheists are closed minded to theist beliefs. And theists are closed minded to atheist beliefs.

No one on this planet is open minded. Your only open minded if you are ready to except EVERYTHING you know as wrong.

Some people on both sides may do this, and thus disprove my rash statement a few sentences up. In which case I hope it does. Because that means I'll be more open minded. Can you say in your counter argument you are going to enter it willing to be wrong of what you are saying? I am.

Good post.

Thank you. Here's a fun logic puzzle for you...

Where and when is it logical to eat the golden carrot? (literally).

After you've eaten the golden rabbit?

I'd argue that it's never logical to eat the golden carrot or the golden rabbit. They are solid gold! Can't be good on ones digestive tract!

One has to evolve into a being that has an average body temperature of 1064 degrees Celcius and then eat the carrot provided that:

A: The carrot actually has any nutritional value within it.
B: The carrot needs to be a iiquid to ingest it.
C: The carrot is preffered by the hot creature.
D: A golden carrot can exist and be grown.
E: Eating the carrot will probably taste better with a golden steak, golden peas and broad beans, with gold mashed potatoes with a gold yorkshire pudding. And to top it off, covered with golden gravy...

But logically, aren't we just eating gold? And who says its logical to eat gold anyway? Or that a 1064 degrees celcius being would find gold eadable.

Teehee. Finding logic from logic proves the original logic illogical... I wonder if you can interperet that into how we think about the universe.

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Teehee. Finding logic from logic proves the original logic illogical... I wonder if you can interperet that into how we think about the universe.

I'm not even going to try going there! lol

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Teehee. Finding logic from logic proves the original logic illogical... I wonder if you can interperet that into how we think about the universe.

Originally Posted by sox

then we're all doomed.

hehe

Logic is a way of thinking. Your logic is not better because it is more equipped for debate.



Gold is a good conductor but is it really that smart?


PS
If your body was hot enough to melt gold, it would be hot enough to destroy most of the nutrients in the carrot.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

If your body was hot enough to melt gold, it would be hot enough to destroy most of the nutrients in the carrot.

*Facepalm*

Who says that gold carrots have nutrients at room temperature anyway? Why apply a human beings concept and capability of eating non-gold carrots to a non-human beings way of eating gold carrots.

i didnt, most can just as easily be none... what is 90% of 0? Hmmm?

don't make me give you a black palm with my cheek

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Why apply a human beings concept and capability of eating non-gold carrots to a non-human beings way of eating gold carrots.

Because both ways involve living creatures eating carrots of some description?

This conversations beyond me if im honest haha

this conversation is beyond all of us, don't feel left out

It is the balrog of logical questions!

Originally Posted by sox

It is the balrog of logical questions!

Is that the most logical conclusion?

Well it's the type of conclusion Gandalf would have came out with. And he was the wisest Maiar in Arda :wink:

Yeah but I'm the drowsiest turtle in the sea...

did anyone actually watch the video? It is not about changing your logic(way of thinking) it is about developing critical thinking skills. Critical Thinking is a class you might be able to take at collage, it is a mental-tool like psychology or calculus.

There is nothing about critical thinking that says anything is wrong, quite the contrary, this is a very good example of uncritical thinking. Here is an example of critical thinking: Just because you cannot prove something does not make it wrong.

So using critical thought it might seem as though I've justified believing whatever you would like, but this is not true, this is uncritical thinking at work.

What I have justified is finding out for yourself, and if you are curious about something, if you believe in something, to learn from those who disagree as well as those who agree.

Lets think criticaly for a moment here:

If you believe in something, you naturally want to share it with others. In order to do this you need to be able to communicate what you believe in a way that your target audience receives it and understands it the same as you do. In order to do this you need to understand two things, who you are talking to, and what you are talking about.

Most importantly, you need to understand why your target audience disagrees with you. This should be the subject of your argument, not why they should agree with you. Although it seems paradoxical to the uncritical mind, lets look at how YOU respond to these two phrases

X and Z prove Y or This evidence proves this fact(that you don't believe in)

or

X and Z does not prove Y or This evidence does not prove this theory(that you do believe in)

It is more humble and less aggressive, and provides more of a chance to learn on both sides, to present a case as though you are interested where you are going, not as though you have already decided. Questions are the tool of the reformer, that is how you learn WHY people disagree, and only then can you try to change that. You must address why they disagree critically, to show them that those reasons are not based on reason. Then when they begin to ask you questions, can you ever hope to have their ear. You must first make them ask themselves questions, before you ever think of addressing them.

Lets take a couple examples from Monty Python's the Holy Grail, just to show some possibilities of uncritical thinking. My memory is a bit shot so I will describe the scene's plainly and leave out names I've forgotten.

King Arthur is arguing with another man about where he found coconuts. King Arthur says a bird flew them here. The other man doesn't think it is possible so he experiments by tying coconuts to a birds feet. He is interrupted though by a mob dragging a woman dressed, by the mob, to look like a witch. They want her burnt, but first they must prove she is a witch. They come up with a test based on these two bits of evidence, Witches are made out of wood, and wood floats, so if she floats she is a witch. But slightly more critical of a thought, it is said that ducks also float, but witches weigh more than ducks, so if she floats and weighs more than a duck, she must be a witch and she will be burnt.

These show very plainly how uncritical thought works, I think that is the point of Monty Python's humor, all great comedians, and that is why humor is so great, it shows us our lack of critical thinking, we jump to wrong conclusions and we become the butt of the joke.

Let me say, there is more to Monty Python's humor than showing us the lack of critical thinking, there is also the fact that coconuts float across thousands of miles of ocean. No one knows where they originated because of this nomadic life, they are found all over where the climate suits them, and it would be a surprise but not a mystery if one ended up landing on any coast anywhere in the world.

I am confident Monty knew this very well when he wrote that skit, and had it in mind for a higher level of jest for those with a higher degree of information. It is after all, information which gives us the ability to decide, decisions do not give us better access to information, and it is this Critical Thinking that I will not decide EVER what I believe until my last moment alive if at all possible. I think this is what Socrates was trying to teach, not by preaching what he believed, because he didn't believe anything, but by asking questions so that he could learn and everyone could learn from each other.

I've got a better idea....

The whole concept of there being a golden carrot in the first place is ridiculous. Therefore there is no way a golden carrot can grow naturally by statistical probability.

If I ever land on a foreign alien world (that being subjective to logic too) and see a golden carrot naturally growing. I will study and explain it as best possible when it comes.... The saying "Never cross a bridge 'till you come to it". Was said by wise people for a reason. And I throw it in here to apply wisdom to my logic.

Top that :P.

congrats it seems you have filled your own cup

I accept your premise but not your conclusion!

I once knew someone who said that. Now what do I do now its full? I'll get bored, do I fill my bowl now?

Eh?