Fallacies of Logic

[sjastro]

I suppose this could be put in the General Chat forum but there are plenty of examples that occur here.:D

http://www.2012hoax.org/fallacies

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Goodness me !!

The list just keeps getting longer every time we look a this aspect.

This list has 63 entries !!

It seems almost daunting to even attempt to frame a logical, justifiable argument based on past theory/empiricism. This being because we do rely heavily upon the previous authors to have observed and avoided these fallacy/errors.

I guess my angle here, is the more subtle trap of relying on others' theories, as opposed to theories sourced from self-generated ideas, which are frequently embedded within a sea of such errors in logic.

I do agree that I've seen quite a few discussions lately, containing elements of these distinctions. (I won't necessarily exclude myself in all of this, either).

It is also interesting to note that a science discussion can:

i) be based on empirical evidence, and still be fraught with logical fallacies and;
ii) be free from logical fallacies, and yet have no empirical evidence basis. (The legal process is one to think about here).

Thanks for the reminder Steven !
Cool.
:)
Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Steven. No doubt I offend but I am willing to learn to be better and see your link as very helpful.
alex:):):)

[sjastro]

It one of the advantages for a peer review process. The works with logical fallacies are filtered out in the process.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Alex,

If it makes you feel better a former in law of mine who has an IQ of 175, and is the most gifted individual I have ever come across, thinks I am a regular exponent of "Non Causa Pro Causa" fallacy.;)

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Another, more humanistic observation of this, is that why are we assuming that a logical argument is somehow superior ?

I mean, we are all humans exhibiting illogic !

Are there any 'Spocks' out there with whom we can have purely illogic free conversations with ?

Politicians, (and lawyers), all seem to exhibit vast knowledge of all these fallacies, and actually exploit them to gain 'power'. (Which seems to be of course, their main goal in life ;) ).

Cheers

[sjastro]

Well I suppose I may fall victim to the "False Analogy" fallacy here, but a logical argument generates a far higher signal/noise ratio.:)

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

You have to laugh.

Here at my mates (tarot reader) and another chap turns up excited about the 2012 thing, and how the carbon change in the Sun will cause us to mutate into more wonderful beings capable of manifesting anything we want thereby eliminating the need for money or assisted transport.

Guess what I heard him out and said nothing:eyepop:. It seemed the easiest way out:)
alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Interestingly, my point is that there seems to be relationship between one's goals (in a discussion) and the use of logic. Steven's example is to achieve a higher 'signal-to-noise'. Politicians, I think actually seek to decrease the signal-to-noise.

But there seems to be an implicit relationship between a quest for 'truth' and the application of logic to get there.

I have maintained that Science is not about 'Truth'.

Hmm …

Cheers

[CraigS]

OMG !!!
Our conversations may have a measurable outcome, after all !!

(Just kidding with you again, Alex ;) )

:)

[xelasnave]

Selling is not always telling.
In my view few are totally free of "leaps in logic" my general term for any offense that we could find in the list.
alex

[xelasnave]

I guess I respect your view of the Universe a little more and so I will continue to help all understand it is a push universe now that I am happy that GR fits it like a glove..well it would if we leave out the attraction and push aspects:rolleyes:.

Maybe this should have gone in general chat but a little comic relief is warranted given the generally serious stuff we do here;)
alex:):):)

[sjastro]

Politics and logic are mutually exclusive. The Rennaisance gave birth to the Scientific Method, but an unfortunate gift from the same period is Machiavellianism to which politicians adhere to.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

But are we going to mutate into more logical beings. :)

[xelasnave]

Yes anything you want I guess?
alex:):):)

[CraigS]

I think this is a terminology/label difference only.

The area of overlap is surely, the truth.

If there is no truth, ie: that there is no-one who has the actual, hard story of it all, then the difference between Machiavellianism and logic disappears.
As a 'random' example: "Is there exo-life out there ?"
or:
"Did the Big Bang happen ?"

No one knows … so there is no truth, so there is no distinction between Machiavellianism and 'scientific' logic .. its a matter of 'personal taste' (to quote Sir Ed .. Witten, that is …)

Theory, with supporting empirical evidence, would then seem to be the differentiator, I guess.

Cheers

[CraigS]

But wait …

There's another dimension to this one …

Mathematical Logic !!

So, I kind of view Maths as 'hard-core' logic. There are proofs in Maths.
I think many people overlook the intrinsic logic in Mathematics. All they see is numbers and they get lost in the machinations.

However, maths upholds logic (in the background) whilst 'other' things are happening, during say, a maths procedure.

But if an attempt at a mathematical proof is flawed (or in logical error), it is much easier to see, for all observers. (Ie as compared with some kind of verbal debate and the necessity to apply 'Logical Fallacy' distinctions, to reveal the flaws).

I'll use Mathis as an example. His 'proofs' seem to be a direct attack on the logic intrinsic to mathematics. Or is it that he adopts a Machiavellian stance to some aspect of it before he starts out ?

Whatever he's up to, it is certainly destructive, and seems to be a direct attack on the intrinsic logic which operates throughout mathematics in general.

Cheers

[Karls48]

It is not. If the ability of logical thinking were superior, the natural selection would eliminate non- logical traits in humanity long time ago. We would be all Spocks by now
The only system where logic unarguably works is in binary logic. As any system gets more complex – what’s logical and what is not become harder and harder to define.
The human society is so complex that if the individual try to justify everything he does or said as logical – he would probably die of starvation, as he would not have
time for anything else.
That begs for the question – What is Logic? And who or what defines what is it?

[CraigS]

Karl;

Logic is invented by humans. I believe it serves to maintain the integrity of a discussion, so us humans don't fall into a complete delusionary world.
It serves the purpose of staying 'true' to the original premise of an argument.

In this sense, it may not be 'superior', but it does cleverly force us to be consistent by giving us a tool to expose flaws publically, thereby using fear as a demotivator for being publically untruthful.

I don't see much in common with natural selection. Evolution may have given us the minds to invent logic, in order for us to separate our perceptions from reality, or at least, that's how we tend to make use of it.

Human society is complex. The rules of logic make it simpler for us to separate the leaves from the trees. In our communications. It is simply a tool, as are the rules of fallacy.

Arguing whether it is 'superior' over something else is not logical. ;)
:)
Cheers

[sjastro]

Machiavellism is based on deceiving others irrespective of whether the statement in question is a truth or a supposition.

For example opponents of the BB at that other website engage in a whole plethora of logical fallacies to justify their arguments.
One particular disturbing aspect is the Staw Man argument where scientists are dishonest corrupt individuals who invented the BB to preserve their careers and paychecks.
Since opponents of the BB don't engage in such nefarious activities, their version of events must be correct.
It's a very attractive line to gain converts.

You can't get more Machiavellian than this.....

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Mathematicians will occasionally assume the propostion is false in order to obtain a contradiction.

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

With regards to Mathis, yes it is totally destructive, a fine example of Machiavellian behaviour at work.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmm .. I don't think anyone could see it otherwise, in this case.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I could imagine that he might be attempting to demonstrate how mathematics could be used to produce nonsensical outcomes … which would then serve his purpose of undermining theoretical physics.

However, as we've seen in your other Mathis thread, many folk here, immediately found numerous flaws in the logic and thus, he's actually failed, if this was his primary goal.

(You can see that I'm still searching for something other than the obvious 'Machiavellian' motive … I just don't want to believe !! :) )

Cheers

[sjastro]

According to Mathis, he uncovers corruption (calculus is corrupt, physics is corrupt etc). Why does he need to engage in this type of hyperbole when the exercise is to simply refute the mathematics?

The hyperbole is the deception. It's Machiavelli at work (again).:)

Regards

Steven

[marki]

Ah yes the old two wrongs don't make a right but i am sure three lefts do:P

Ya all be good now ;)

Mark

[xelasnave]

Probably a little off topic but my difficulties with the big bang theory comes from my perception that to take an observation, (Edwin Hubbles) that the Universe is expanding and from that rationalize such observation as evidence that we can mentally reverse the expansion so reach a point where all matter and energy was concentrated at a single point in the form of a conceptualized singularity, is not a logical approach.

I know what will be said..there is other evidence etc... however my point is simply does not such an extrapolation offend logic.

I am not trying to be cute but as usual seeking guidance from those who have greater understanding of the history surrounding the development of the theory.
alex:):):)

[CraigS]

It sounds perfectly logical to me.

Could you elaborate on the illogical perspective ??

cheers

[xelasnave]

Could no other interpretation of the observation be presented...particularly at that point in the history of human astronomical observation... we are then at a point where galaxies other than the Milky Way are being determined as being outside the Milky Way and we had a new understanding of the Universe ....and in such an environment I feel to make one single conclusion from the observation eliminated consideration of alternatives.

Would it not have been just as logical to suggest that the observation points to a "pulsing" of the universe and that as it was expanding at the point of observation we could expect in time to observe it contracting.
Perhaps a poor example and if not in a rush suspect I could list other conclusions that would at that point in history seem logical.

Anyways must go so it may be a while that I am away and presumably when back I will be too cut to understand much at all...
have a great day.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Thinking more about the logic.
Having made such an observation why did not Hubble reach for Dark Matter to explain it..seems reasonable...in other words could he not have credited the expansion to a dark matter shell at the edge of the universe that was attracting the galaxies in an outward direction??? I simple see the conclusion of expansion although arguably a logical conclusion because of its exclusion of alternatives as not logical.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Alex;

Its all been considered using FLRW spacetime and Einstein's field equations.

Even when they considered non-uniform distribution of present day matter (which normally leads to a singularity), it all comes out to the same answer .. a singularity.

The "If" conditions are first specified with corresponding "Then" outcomes.

The key is matching the "Ifs" with the outcomes.

Apologies if this doesn't make clear sense .. I've run out of time.

More tomorrow, perhaps.

Cheers
PS: Hubble measured the expansion. The Theory came much later .. after Fred Hoyle's theories died out.

[sjastro]

Hubble would have committed professional suicide if he made such a statement.

It's been known since the 18th century if you distribute matter into a spherical shell then there is no force of attraction between an object inside the shell, and the shell itself. The force of attraction can only exist for objects outside the shell.

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

My view

Bert

[avandonk]

To put this into a human perspective we have an analytical pre frontal cortex and an emotional response to stimulus driven by the amagdala in our brains.

If we rely on a long train of logic when threatened with our immediate survival by the time you have worked out a solution you have been eaten!

A balanced human uses both to survive.

A psychopath has no neural connection between his pre frontal cortex and amagdala. So it is perfectly logical to do the most obscene things as he has no empathy whatsoever.

The problem with the concept of TRUTH is that the other person you are trying to convince must have your baseload of knowledge at least. This is why you do not reason with two year old children. You explain reality to them as a dictator.

That is why there are so many ways to lead the ignorant astray. The best way of course is to appeal to emotion and all futher reason is just ignored!

Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.

Education is not about facts it is about the ability to reason with the available evidence.

Where I come from we call this wisdom.

Bert

[CraigS]

Hmm …

My definition of TRUTH goes beyond equal baseloads of knowledge, though Bert.

I mean, there is a physical reality (or TRUTH), in our universe which would seem to transcend a conversation beyond individuals. No matter how different knowledge levels may be amongst humans, there would still be agreement between two individuals about something having length, breadth and depth (under the same frame of reference … & within reasonable bounds).

Perhaps this is why Science is confused with TRUTH. (??)
Ie: Science is usually attempting to define & deal with reality, huh ?

Maintaining the distinction between truth in physical reality and truth as a result of conversations would seem to be a prudent practice (good Wisdom).

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig if I told you all you see is a fabrication of your brain and is in reality a bunch of infinite wave functions that collapse to your reality for your time and place, you would doubt my sanity.

Science is not about TRUTH. It is about emperical evidence to formulate some structure of perceived reality. The fact that mathematics works to describe that reality is still amazing to me.

We humans do have this strange adaptation of abstract thought where a concept is as real as reality.

I have seen the noise on the interwebs where people scream at each other to be heard above the din of the ignorant. A bit like the rabid mobs of old!

The most mind enhancing vision I ever had was after climbing through thick cloud near sunset (in a light aircraft) and after clearing the cloud it was a sea of pink cloud to the 'horizon'. The Sun was on the 'horizon'. It could have been the surface of another planet. It was very disorienting but I managed to fly the plane. All my preconceived inputs to my senses were wrong! Fortunately I had an instructor with me that knew far more than me including how to get back to the airport through 100% cloud cover from eight thousand feet.

If we did not argue we would never learn the other point of view. I think it is healthy we have differences. I never feel threatened by someone who knows more than me such as sjastro or even craigs.

I will be long gone while they are stil interacting!

bert

[CraigS]

In the past … yep.
Now, I'm beginning to understand it .. its a very real and cool concept .. and weird … and it all came from conversation and knowledge acquisition (reading lots). :)



Absolutely .. me too !
Why/how does mathematics do this ? Is it because it describes the reality which conceived it in the first place ?



I recently read someone arguing that Einstein's Relativity was all a thought experiment turned into reality by other evil scientists who attempted to follow in his footsteps !!



I think I read the same noise (see my comment immediately above).


Hmm a mixture of the physical reality of impending doom .. countered by knowledge … that's cool.


Be afraid .. be very afraid .. of being led by CraigS !!
His perspective changes everytime he reads something new (and he's starting from scratch most of the time … a self-starting-repeater !)
:):lol:

I do wonder how long I can keep this effort going … is there a limit ?
I'd like to think its called 'death'.
By the way … I bought myself my Christmas present … "Godel, Escher and Bach" !! It's a big book … look out if I actually understand any of it, though !
I still don't know what its about .. and yet I bought it !! Strange.

Merry Christmas & have a Happy New Year, Bert !!

Cheers

[Octane]

That is a magnificent book, Craig. : )

Spent my spare time during university poring through it.

H

[CraigS]

G'Day H;

Ha ! I'm a bit intimidated by the look of it !

It seems that quite a few IISs have read it .. there'll be no stopping me asking for explanations once I get going with it !
(That's given that I have absolutely no idea of what its really about at the moment !.. that might not change, either … :) )
:lol::)
Watch out all !
:thumbsup:

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you & all.
:)
Cheers

[Paul Haese]

Hmm, I am not sure one could postulate that scientific method is a way of logical. Logic is a philosophical way of thinking. For something to be logical it must have a set of dictums assigned to it that are seen as being self evidentary. Lawyers use logic in a syllogistic method. Science uses arguments based on observation through experimentation. Not logic but evidence based statements. Subtle difference but one all the same.

[TrevorW]

Never assume you are right as inevitably you will be proven to be wrong

[avandonk]

What Hofstadter really meant to say was what Carl Sagan said 'in order to make an apple pie from scratch you would first need to invent the whole Universe.'

Hofstadter just said the same thing in a lot more words. I think he was a bit of a show off.

There are a few, OK many bits I had trouble with.

Bert

[Octane]

Ref: attached.

H

[CraigS]

Looks like Bert !?!

:)

[renormalised]

Never a truer word has been said :):)

[CraigS]

Is that a scientific statement ?
:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

It's a statement of truth :):P

One of the very few you can bank your money on :):P

[CraigS]

Ahh.. but there's no truth in Science !!

And if you bank your money, the pollies get it !!
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Who said it was science, and they can't get your money in a Swiss bank a/c :):P

[avandonk]

Quoting CraigS

"Absolutely .. me too !
Why/how does mathematics do this ? Is it because it describes the reality which conceived it in the first place ?"


The quick answer is we do not know. Hofstadter addresses this in his book. Paul Davies has tried to answer this as well.

Craig you will find Hofstadter's book perplexing at first. It is way above my abilities to fully comprehend but then I have only been trying for about twenty years.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem stunned the mathematical world out of their smugness.

Escher by his brilliant drawings showed the same sort of paradoxes. Locally logical but globally paradoxical.

Bach did the same with music as his seemingly continuous descending and ascending scales fooled your senses completely. I dont have perfect pitch so I wonder if people with this skill woud be fooled.

In my humble opinion a way around these paradoxes is that at the fundamental level of QM there is only probability governed by interactions. There is no possibilty of feed back in QM so Chaos theory does not have any effect.

Once we get into the realm of the macroscopic we have feedback that causes complexity beyond the inherent qualities of the system. Is there is a boundary?

The problem is of course order out of chaos and chaos out of order so defying any so called logic!

It is difficult to get these concepts across in a few sentences. Hofstadter needed a very thick book and it is still incomprehensible to me!

Bert

[CraigS]

Fascinating this stuff is, Bert !



Hmm .. I'm not sure I understand this. (Its OK … just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean much). But I find it difficult to wrap my mind around this. The behaviour at the quantum level would seem to be almost random, which is so close, (but distinctly separate), to Chaotic behaviour.

A feedback mechanism might simply be beyond our ability to detect it.(?) Surely things at the Quantum level interact through some means (?? .. I don't know :shrug: )

Seems to me the extra dimensions of String Theory would be a convenient place for these interactions/feedback, if it were present .. but there again, I'm sure some of the bright guys working on this are millions of steps beyond this thought.

From the little I've read so far, Hofstadter seems to be on about consciousness … the plot must thicken as I wade further into it. I'm not sure I even understand the Introduction yet !! :lol:
:)
Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig an indeterminate state cannot have feedback upon itself!

Bert

[CraigS]

Ok .. this is just my lack of understanding of all this. I think I exposed myself in this respect, on the topic of 'entanglement' and probability waves. The message was (from all, Bert included) that the probability 'lists' at each entangled photon detector are completely independent of eachother in terms of local reality … but I still can't stop myself wondering how two photons appear to be the same photon, at two physically separate locations, at the same instant, without some form of connection (or feedback) .. I still can't get the idea of 'connection' out of my mind.

Maybe I just have my knickers-in-a-knot (this wouldn't surprise me !).

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig the two entangled particles have the same wave function so they can be considered as the one particle. So anything you do to one you do too 'both'.

This is the way I think of it.

What this leads to of course is connexion across time and space for all particles that have had previous interactions in a way we do not yet understand.

String theory allows connexion through other dimensions so allowing 'instant' action at a distance faster than light.

I would further propose that since all the Universe was once in the one 'place' in the one 'time' in the putative naked singularity before the big bang, EVERYTHING is forever connected in ways we do not understand yet!

An inderterminate state such as a wave function cannot interact with itself to change its state from a future conformation. Once these wave functions collapse to 'reality' they can then have a feedback effect on the system to modulate the systems future.

I am most probably totally wrong but it is the best I can come up with to explain the evidence.

When Bucky Balls with Chlorine and or Fluorine atoms can produce diffraction patterns by interfering with themselves I have to consider that these molecules are just wave functions until we 'look' at them.

Of course the inevitable conclusion is that our perceived reality is only a consequence of constant interaction of all these wave functions. When the interactions stop the Universe ceases to exist.

Bert

[CraigS]

Hmm I get where you're coming from Bert. All sounds credible to me.
All poised for some real evidence … I hope we see it in our lifetimes !

These extra dimensions of String Theory are still perplexing to me.

Whenever I've read up on these, the explanation seems to always indicate that these are incredibly small curly things (like my Avatar), which may occur at every point in space. But these representations are just very tiny 3D objects … I still don't see how these are actually what I'd call 'extra dimensions'.

I can actually relate more closely to the maths definitions of them, than the analogies painted by the mainstream Physics authors.

Interesting.

Cheers

[avandonk]

A simple analogy is a two dimensional being observing an elephant crossing his 'Universe'.

This strange thing starts off as a thick circle then get much fatter and has islands as well finally dissapearing with a thin circle.

What if all we see is elephants crossing our three dimensional Universe?

We have no way of knowing!

I will keep a very open mind.

Bert