Page 1 of 4

Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:30 am
by Andiferous
This is really just a rough of a logic guide that I have recently composed. I really do rely on the smart folks here to help me make it good, because, really, I'm a bit substandard at doing this. I hope to make this as accurate and understandable as possible. Please do flame away, because I know lots of you are better than myself at this stuff. Politely, preferably, but not necessarily... :)

Thank you muchly ;)

***

So what exactly is philosophy?

I'm not being glib. There are many topics associated with the discipline, but philosophy itself is really just a method of testing and evaluating ideas. But it's often associated with ideas that it TESTS, misrepresenting the discipline into some sort of thick, pretentious pointless masticating on its own complicated abstract greatness. Well, boo that. Really, philosophy is just a kind of truth filter that doesn't discriminate between ridiculous or profound concepts.

Philosophy goes by the principle that if ideas are broken down to variables that are TRUE, then when calculated together in the mathematical lingo of FORMAL LOGIC, as an abstraction the argument can be proven TRUE or FALSE. FORMAL LOGIC is a transposition of ideas into variables, and variables computed by formulas. There are only two solutions to these formulas: TRUE or FALSE. It is why it's the foundation for computer programming.

For instance, a familiar kind of philosophical argument might look like this:


All girls have red hair.
my mother is a girl
therefore...
My mother must have red hair.

For more complex arguments, ideas are simplified into variables and analysed by formal logic.

Transposing the former argument to variables makes:

mother = M
red hair = R
girls = G

ALL G are R, and M is G, then M must also be R. This is a TRUE statement as proven by formal logic.

But if I were to twist these:

SOME G have R, M is G, then M must also be R.

Or alternately, SOME girls have red hair, mother is a girl, therefore, mother must have red hair: the variables don't compute using LOGIC. I've made a FALSE statement. I haven't proven that ALL girls have red hair, so I have ignored the possibility that my mother might be a blonde. The argument is broken.

Fallacies are pretentious names for common false equations. To PROVE a fallacy, you have to show how the equation is false; usually transposed into sentences. If you were really geeky you could do sentence fragments represented by a formula.

I really don't like fallacies because firstly, my memory sucks and I can't retain their equations; and secondly, I can't really just name the problem, I have to explain why I'm naming it a fallacy or I could be BSing everyone; and thirdly, I am stubborn and find them irritating. They are like a verbal short cut to complex verbal formulas. However, you have to assure they fit the "failed formula" to identify the fallacy, and that's kind of tedious anyway. I think most people aren't super geeky enough have an inherent understanding of a fallacy, so it means nothing as criticism anyway. It can break down communication into a game of verbal ping-pong with no one really holding the ball.

Philosophy is the universal test for truth in ideas and abstractions. Not much passes through the philosophical filter. Abstractions like theology and time and determinism are rather difficult to simplify into neat equations, and so those ideas just bounce around in philosophical study as yet unsolved problems. For people to eternally analyse.

Eureka! If glory be, the equation is proved true in solid logic, this equation graduates from philosophy into science where it will have real and practical testing. Really, you could say that the hypothesis is almost always born of philosophy, so the two disciplines will always be closely connected. You could say that science is the testing of the truth of those variables that make up the equations; and when it is impossible to test those and prove those variables are TRUE (or statistically true) in practical testing and observation, you're stuck with a theory.Theories are in hypothetical truth limbo untill their variables can be confirmed. It would be entertaining to otherwise bend space and time to prove Einstein's calculations on relativity. :P

Evaluating the ideas precedes evaluating their application. You need philosophy to have science. Debates are a practice of philosophy. Fallacies are a philosophical concept. Folks here just analyse with words and ideas. It's all philosophy. :P

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:24 pm
by CosmicJoghurt
That was quite interesting to read. Always a good reading for newbies like myself, thank you :)

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:10 am
by Andiferous
Thank you again, there, for your reply. ;)

I ask again for comments. I really have made some very forcefull subjective remarks that even I was tentative about making, but the fact that no one disagrees with me is a bit disappointing. i hope you all know that I have great respect for those folks who beat on me. And nothing I do is right unless well beat on.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:14 am
by Memeticemetic
Andiferous wrote:Fallacies are pretentious names for common false equations. To PROVE a fallacy, you have to show how the equation is false; usually transposed into sentences. If you were really geeky you could do sentence fragments represented by a formula.

I really don't like fallacies because firstly, my memory sucks and I can't retain their equations; and secondly, I can't really just name the problem, I have to explain why I'm naming it a fallacy or I could be BSing everyone; and thirdly, I am stubborn and find them irritating. They are like a verbal short cut to complex verbal formulas. However, you have to assure they fit the "failed formula" to identify the fallacy, and that's kind of tedious anyway. I think most people aren't super geeky enough have an inherent understanding of a fallacy, so it means nothing as criticism anyway. It can break down communication into a game of verbal ping-pong with no one really holding the ball.


Alrighty, a wee bit of constructive criticism, then. It seems to me that your objection to the identification of fallacies really only applies in the realm of debate, formal or otherwise. I'm inclined to agree with your objection in that context, (I'm writing up a small piece currently on what I call the 'fallacy fallacy'). But when dealing in the realm of logic it is of vital importance to know your fallacies and know them well. Not so much for oneupsmanship, but to make your own writing clear, consistent and error free and to determine what errors others have made in theirs. Just looking at an argument and thinking, "that just doesn't seem right" is, well, intellectually lazy to be honest. Identifying, and correcting, error is tantamount. So suck it up buttercup, learn y'self some fallacies! :lol:

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:19 am
by Andiferous
Memeticemetic wrote:
Andiferous wrote:Fallacies are pretentious names for common false equations. To PROVE a fallacy, you have to show how the equation is false; usually transposed into sentences. If you were really geeky you could do sentence fragments represented by a formula.

I really don't like fallacies because firstly, my memory sucks and I can't retain their equations; and secondly, I can't really just name the problem, I have to explain why I'm naming it a fallacy or I could be BSing everyone; and thirdly, I am stubborn and find them irritating. They are like a verbal short cut to complex verbal formulas. However, you have to assure they fit the "failed formula" to identify the fallacy, and that's kind of tedious anyway. I think most people aren't super geeky enough have an inherent understanding of a fallacy, so it means nothing as criticism anyway. It can break down communication into a game of verbal ping-pong with no one really holding the ball.


Alrighty, a wee bit of constructive criticism, then. It seems to me that your objection to the identification of fallacies really only applies in the realm of debate, formal or otherwise. I'm inclined to agree with your objection in that context, (I'm writing up a small piece currently on what I call the 'fallacy fallacy'). But when dealing in the realm of logic it is of vital importance to know your fallacies and know them well. Not so much for oneupsmanship, but to make your own writing clear, consistent and error free and to determine what errors others have made in theirs. Just looking at an argument and thinking, "that just doesn't seem right" is, well, intellectually lazy to be honest. Identifying, and correcting, error is tantamount. So suck it up buttercup, learn y'self some fallacies! :lol:


Thank you kindly. ;)

I agree. Hmm. I admit that was target #1 for revision. I should rephrase and this helps. By the way - would love to read your article.

Would you agree that to claim a fallacy one must also explain it and prove it?

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:25 am
by Memeticemetic
Andiferous wrote:Would you agree that to claim a fallacy one must also explain it and prove it?


I would heartily agree. I very rarely, if indeed, ever, point out fallacies in conversation or debate because it completely derails the discussion. And most of the fallacies people know or refer to are the informal ones anyway, (strawman, ad hom, etc.) these amount to fallacies about arguing style or rhetoric more than the actual substance of an argument and, in my opinion, the best way to deal with them is with maximum contempt, ie: ignore the ever-lovin' shit outta them.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:33 am
by Andiferous
Indeed; informally, this is, I tend not to take 'fallacy' at face value without proof, and tend to ignore them in common discourse unless proven. Many of my assignments in the past have been to give bloody pages and pages just to prove an argument is a fallacy. Which seemed silly to me, since I might as well have made up my own fallacy given the effort. No handy shortcut, there.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:43 am
by Memeticemetic
Andiferous wrote:Many of my assignments in the past have been to give bloody pages and pages just to prove an argument is a fallacy.


It's a pain in the ever-lovin' ass to be sure, but it's necessary. Not so important to be able to put a specific name to the fallacy, but it's necessary to determine both that and why it's a fallacy. I would say I didn't know a bloody thing about logic until I had to go through those tedious exercises. Hell, I'm not so sure I know a bloody thing about logic to this day, but I ain't dead yet, still time to learn more.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:47 am
by Andiferous
Perhaps, may I suggest, the assignments are to understand the fallacy because application is a lot trickier than it looks, and probably another good reason to not toss 'em around in casual debate.

Even if the arguer understands completely, chances are the audience does not.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:00 pm
by lrkun
Logic

For example, if birds are dinosaurs, and chickens are birds, then chickens are dinosaurs.

B=D
C=B
C=D

A use for algebra. ^^

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:17 pm
by Master_Ghost_Knight
lrkun wrote:Logic

For example, if birds are dinosaurs, and chickens are birds, then chickens are dinosaurs.

B=D
C=B
C=D

A use for algebra. ^^


Well it is actually wrong. it should have been
B->D
C->B
C->D

Because all chickens are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are chickens.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:23 pm
by Andiferous
It's sneaky algebra, or ninja mathematics.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:26 pm
by lrkun
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
lrkun wrote:Logic

For example, if birds are dinosaurs, and chickens are birds, then chickens are dinosaurs.

B=D
C=B
C=D

A use for algebra. ^^


Well it is actually wrong. it should have been
B->D
B->B
C->D

Because all chickens are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are chickens.


Okay.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:28 pm
by Andiferous
Technically you did with the equal to sign. The = supposedly goes in both directions. This is why logic is a real pain in the arse. ;)

Thanks Mr. Knight, I'm completely rusty on my lexicon.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:30 pm
by lrkun
Andiferous wrote:Technically you did with the equal to sign. The = supposedly goes in both directions. This is why logic is a real pain in the arse. ;)

Thanks Mr. Knight, I'm completely rusty on my lexicon.


What do you mean?

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:31 pm
by Andiferous
Er, this was in response to your former post before editing, I won't reiterate if you bothered to change it.

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:34 pm
by lrkun
Andiferous wrote:Er, this was in response to your former post before editing, I won't reiterate if you bothered to change it.


Okay. I made a mistake; but I'm glad when I do, because I learn something new. :)

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:30 pm
by MineMineMine
the whole formal logic feels a bit off in the sense of philosophy.

Simply because stuff like sentences like
i'm a dinosaur -> Obama is a woman

are computed true in the mathematical sense of formal logic

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:33 pm
by Andiferous
Er, how is that?

Re: Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:27 pm
by Memeticemetic
Bwahahahaha! Your new avatar totally had me scratching my head for several minutes trying to figure out how the hell you got yourself banned. Good show, man.