3 ms·

> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. I strive to be logical as a personal goal, but it's often not val

> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. I strive to be logical as a personal goal, but it's often not valued in the work-place, or anywhere. Keep in mind "logical" is not necessarily the same as "being right", at least not my working definition. Being logical is being able to back up your viewpoint and claims using a clear chain of logic. I define any assumptions I make as givens, and my conclusion can be formed directly from those givens. I don't necessarily write it out in formal logic, but if one questions a specific informally-written step, I can and do formalize/clarify it. Logic can only get you so far. Your argument can be perfectly chained together logically, but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. This is probably what you meant by being logical is not always being right. Honestly you can be as valid in your arguments as you want, but that doesn’t always make your argument sound, because when your givens turn out to be false your whole chain of logic is moot and your conclusion is not true (as some might think) but instead inconclusive [1]. Just as someone with invalid logical chains and possibly even correct assumptions conclusion would be inconclusive and not false as some may presume (I’m thinking of the fallacy fallacy [2].) Sure it’s important to have a valid argument, but people with unsound valid arguments can make a lot of confusion too and possibly even more so. > Most don't return the favor. "My guts have proven accurate and I'd rather trust my gut feelings" is a common response. Screw Guts, I want logic, damn humans! Human guts have proven dumb. Your givens you describe on setting up your logic could also be categorized as a gut feeling as well. As they say it’s turtles all the way down. Now don’t get me wrong I agree we should be more logical in our arguments. I just think people can take your reasoning too far which is why I added some input. [1]: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_prem... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

tabtab 7y ago
Re: but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them.
- johnsonjo 7y ago
  > As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. I think this is a very good way to look at it. If you can find each others givens you can know how you differ. But, not always is one given more correct than another, but instead sometimes just shows a different perspective. For example in euclidean geometry by changing certain axioms you can create other non-euclidean geometries. Neither is more correct than another only they're true under different circumstances. > For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them. I'm a pretty die-hard conservative myself and social safety nets are good for the down-trodden or those who are disabled or those who cannot work for whatever reason, but sometimes what I've heard is that they disincentivize work for those who are able this hurts not only those being taxed, but the economy, and likely the able bodied person collecting welfare. I think feeding the beast is another problem the government obviously needs to reduce spending and cutting an d reducing spending on government programs could help with that in my mind. Do economists really agree on these things though? Is the given that feeding the beast really that inherently bad? Feel free to educate me my mind is a pretty open book. I think the main problem with big government is it could lead to tyranny and less economic freedom.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Re: but sometimes what I've heard is that they disincentivize work for those who are able I agree it can be hard to distinguish between the truly needy and intentional slackers. But, it would cost even more tax money to inspect harder to find out. Inspectors ain't cheap. It may be counter-intuitive, but it's sometimes cheaper to let some degree of riff-raff slip thru the cracks. The third alternative is that nobody gets anything.
    - johnsonjo 7y ago

tabtab 7y ago

Re: but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them.

johnsonjo 7y ago
> As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. I think this is a very good way to look at it. If you can find each others givens you can know how you differ. But, not always is one given more correct than another, but instead sometimes just shows a different perspective. For example in euclidean geometry by changing certain axioms you can create other non-euclidean geometries. Neither is more correct than another only they're true under different circumstances. > For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them. I'm a pretty die-hard conservative myself and social safety nets are good for the down-trodden or those who are disabled or those who cannot work for whatever reason, but sometimes what I've heard is that they disincentivize work for those who are able this hurts not only those being taxed, but the economy, and likely the able bodied person collecting welfare. I think feeding the beast is another problem the government obviously needs to reduce spending and cutting an d reducing spending on government programs could help with that in my mind. Do economists really agree on these things though? Is the given that feeding the beast really that inherently bad? Feel free to educate me my mind is a pretty open book. I think the main problem with big government is it could lead to tyranny and less economic freedom.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: but sometimes what I've heard is that they disincentivize work for those who are able I agree it can be hard to distinguish between the truly needy and intentional slackers. But, it would cost even more tax money to inspect harder to find out. Inspectors ain't cheap. It may be counter-intuitive, but it's sometimes cheaper to let some degree of riff-raff slip thru the cracks. The third alternative is that nobody gets anything.
  - johnsonjo 7y ago