If you can't answer questions, support accusations, and debate; ridicule your opponent. Nice use of reason and logic. Rand would be proud.

bis bald,

Nick

It's not really defying logic to act in places where reason and logic don't reach.

bis bald,

Nick

I could not find where you said, "Reason reaches everywhere." Perhaps I got confused between what you said and what Jameson said about logic. Nevertheless, you seemed to be arguing with me that reason does not reach everywhere. That is my contention, and I demonstrated it. You seem not to want to recognize this, even when I emphasize it as I did.

Do you think reason reaches everywhere? When I make a baseless choice, am I using reason and logic? Is there a way to use reason and logic before we have knowledge of the possible consequences of an action? Please answer these questions.

I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to make my points. I sincerely think I am right. You may disagree with me. If I were to prove my points, against your views, with reason and logic, would you admit it?

bis bald,

Nick

I have not said 'reason reaches everywhere'. I don't even know what that means in the context that you are using it in. Reason is the tool I use to gain knowledge about reality. It reaches everywhere I can reach ie. up to the ability of my mind.

Pride? Truth? What pride can one find in un-truth? What truth can one find outside of reason?

Wm

It's a debate. You made the claim that reason reaches everywhere, and we found a place where it doesn't reach. You are too dishonest to admit that you lost this point.

You seem more interested in pride than truth. This is more of your willfull ignorance.

bis bald,

Nick

You can not prove reason, since reason is the method of proof. But you can validate it. Check out OPAR or IOTE from the SOLO store.

He was asking you to prove that reason reaches everywhere. We found a place where it doesn't reach, so you won't be able to prove this claim.

bis bald,

Nick

This is not a game.

Wm

We won't know until later if it is the best choice. We just choose. We don't weigh consequences and use reason. We just choose. Be honest. I won this point.

bis bald,

Nick

You can not prove reason, since reason is the method of proof. But you can validate it. Check out OPAR or IOTE from the SOLO store.

Wm

Glenn -
Imagination is a different type of thinking than logic and imagination is independent of logic but they are not mutually exclusive.

...logic can reach everywhere.
Can you prove this, logically?

Nick -
Logic leads to contradictions, but it isn't wise to just not use logic.
Some methods lead to contradictions and it is wise to not use them.

Inductive arguments are, by their nature, inconclusive, but they do often allow us a high degree of certainty, enough to have reliable predictability and technology which builds computers and puts things into outer space. It is good, though, to remember that there is a possibility that we could be wrong. Dogmatic faith, even in logic, gets in the way of positive progress.
I agree with the sentiment but express it differently, I would say it is important to recognise the assumptions that lead to the conclusions.

Sure it was! You used logic to determine that at this point in time, with your current knowledge and experience taken in to account, either choice is likely to lead to the result you desire.

Wm

You make a choice. It is a baseless choice. Yes, you may get more information on which you can apply reason later. However, that first choice was not guided by logic. It was free.

bis bald,

Nick

You make a choice: and try it and see if you are right. Reason will guide you in that evaluation. Reality is the final arbiter of truth.

Wm

How do you choose the first option?

You are evading.

bis bald,

Nick

You are again arguing for omniscience. In each of these cases there was a right answer, it was just unknown at the time. Further experiment and observations would have revealed the correct answer. We are not paralyzed to inaction by reason when all of reality is not known. In fact, it is because everything is not known automatically that we need reason. You will make it very far in a modern philosophy department with these kinds of contradictory views -- but you will not find the truth by holding on to them.

Wm

Sometimes, one option precludes the others. One may be faced with being a doctor or a lawyer and only have the time and resources for one. People do face real dilemmas.

Would you simply pick, for your first option, without using reason, using a flip of the coin? See, logic doesn't tell you which option to choose first.

I often go for walks in a nature preserve with several paths. Sometimes I get lost. I have to decide if I should keep following the path I'm on or turn around and try to go back. By going back, however, I could be going much further than I would if the trial leads right to where I want to go. I usually end up continuing on the path and trying to use my instincts to go in the right direction. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Fortunately, I have always found my way back eventually. Just think, though, if you were lost in the everglades or in a dessert where there are no landmarks, what would you do?

Elvis wanted to make some serious movies and probably would have been happier if he had a challenge. However, the Colonel explained to him, very logically, how much time and effort those serious movies would take, and he is still making lots of money with the low quality movies he was churning out. He could make several of them in the time it took to make West Side Story. So, Elvis subjugated himself to the logical path. He did not flourish. Perhaps he would not have gotten fat and killed himself with drugs if he had taken the less logical path.

I had a chance, with Trade Act Readjustment Allowance, to go back to college for two years. I could have choosen to go after a masters in philosophy and try to get a job teaching philosophy in a community college somewhere. However, I went after another undergaduate major in English and got teaching certification at the secondary level. I'm using that now to sub in high schools as I keep trying to get hired as a regular teacher. My plan is to make lost of money by being a teacher and then get my graduate degree in philosophy and become a philosophy teacher. I took the logical path, but I'm still just a substitute teacher. Sometimes I wish I would have gone for the masters in philosophy first.

bis bald,

Nick

Through reason. You pick one and test it. Then you observe the results.

Wm

Suppose one uses observation and logic to determine that all paths are equally the same. How does logic determine which path to follow?

bis bald,

Nick

When you are facing several paths all worn equally the same, logic will not tell you which one to follow.

What tool did you use to determine that each path was equally the same?

Wm

Contrary to the rantings of the Mad Hatter, logic can reach everywhere.

When you are facing several paths all worn equally the same, logic will not tell you which one to follow. When you are in the middle of an open field with no paths and no landmarks, you must simply make a baseless choice. No amount of logic or reasoning will help you. And, there are situations in life which are analogous to these. Usually they are the most important decisions, like which occupation should you pursue, in what subject should you major, should you marry now or later. Sometimes, you can narrow the choice, but sometimes, the paths are equally the same, and logic doesn't reach.

Logic didn't help me when I decided to go back to Germany after I first completed college. I could have stayed in the States. I was sort of forced to come back to the States when my job in Germany disappeared, but I could also have stayed there and gotten another job. Camus's stranger shot the Arab but couldn't explain why. Alice fell down the hole and walked though the door to Objectivist Land. It wasn't logic which forced her to do that. Sometimes, stuff just happens.

This should be enough for a prima facie case that logic doesn't reach everywhere. It's been made several times on this site. If these guys keep claiming that logic reaches everywhere, make them refute this case and make their own.

bis bald,

Nick

Our approaches differ, if I find a method that results in contradictions then I'll intentionally not use that method. And if I recognise that the truth of an idea is logically inconclusive then I should remember that it may or may not be true.

Logic leads to contradictions, but it isn't wise to just not use logic. Inductive arguments are, by their nature, inconclusive, but they do often allow us a high degree of certainty, enough to have reliable predictability and technology which builds computers and puts things into outer space. It is good, though, to remember that there is a possibility that we could be wrong. Dogmatic faith, even in logic, gets in the way of positive progress.

bis bald,

Nick

If logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, how can you use non-contradictory identification to produce a contradiction?

This is Rand's definition of logic, and it is loaded to give her the results she wants. If I want a definition of automobiles that avoids all blue automibiles, I'll say they are four-wheeled passenger vehicles with built-in engines, and they must be non-blue. If logic is the science of reasoning and can be studied in formal systems, and it is discovered that some procedural rules and principles of logic lead to contradictions and inconclusiveness when they are consistently followed,then we have to either accept that or try to prove it isn't true. Merely trying to redefine logic won't work. In fact, it is al lot like trying to define God into existence by saying He is an existing being.

This is circular logic an an attack on identity. Nick, I fear that you hold on to contradictions. Contradictions do not exist. When you come to a contradiction you have an error in your thinking.

"The sentence following this one is true. The sentence prior to this one is false." Hey, there's a contradiction. Where's the error?

bis bald,

Nick

It's telling that the only support you've had on both your threads attacking logic is from a Christian. And even that's been scant!

First, that's not the kind of support I'm talking about when I talk about unsupported accusations. I'm looking for support in the form of reasoning and evidence, which you lack. All you do is make accusations and call me names. That is not using logic. It's just being a boring jerk. Second, it is evidence of your bigotry again that you think all Christians can never be reasonable. That's not a logical conclusion. It's a fallacious bias.

Rest assured that this world will not be a more "interesting" place with more less-logical nutcases like you. In fact, your illogical windbaggery is the most boring thing on this blog.

There we go again. More name-calling and insults. Not much logic at all. An unsupported accusation. No refutation of any of my arguments and examples. No examples of his own. This is the way Jameson debates. I think, between him and me, I am the more logical.

Your wish is granted.

Good, let's see if he keeps his word this time.

bis bald,

Nick

I'm not twisting your argument: you seem to be saying that imagination and logic are mutually exclusive; that Einstein wasn't using logic when he was letting his mind loose on the uncharted parts of our universe.

Contrary to the rantings of the Mad Hatter, logic can reach everywhere.

Glenn -
Imagination without logic is useless daydreaming...
Twisting my argument like this is pointless.

Nick -
Reed: And if you identify a method that produces contradictory or inconclusive results then you have identified a method which should not be used, logically, to get conclusive results.

Nick: Logic does produce contradictions and is often inconclusive. That is why we are free, not confined by logic.

Our approaches differ, if I find a method that results in contradictions then I'll intentionally not use that method. And if I recognise that the truth of an idea is logically inconclusive then I should remember that it may or may not be true.

I understand your position but I disagree with your conclusion (or inconclusion) on this matter and any argument put forward to contradict logic will simply prove (to me, but not you) that it is an unsound argument so there isn't much room for discussion on this point.

WRT Square circles (from another thread)-
While neither squares nor circles can not exist in reality (being 2 dimensional) mathematically an infinitely small circle and infinitely small square are identical - ie. a point.

Cheers,

Reed

If logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, how can you use non-contradictory identification to produce a contradiction? This is circular logic an an attack on identity. Nick, I fear that you hold on to contradictions. Contradictions do not exist. When you come to a contradiction you have an error in your thinking.

Wm

of context and evidence, Otani - and you know it.

It's telling that the only support you've had on both your threads attacking logic is from a Christian. And even that's been scant!

Rest assured that this world will not be a more "interesting" place with more less-logical nutcases like you. In fact, your illogical windbaggery is the most boring thing on this blog.

Your wish is granted.

Either learn to debate or leave me alone. I don't appreaciate being called dishonest and a twat and a second-hander etc. I spent a long time talking about what I mean.

What did you call me in another thread, a context-dropping scumbag? This is what you are here.

Nick

Nick: "Okay, I'm wary of " too much" logic."

Nick: "You should probably use a little more logic than you do."

And around and around you go....

you can't concede that you're own words prove your wariness of logic.

You seem to think life would be more interesting if we were more illogical. Honestly, mate, you're on the wrong blog. You're looking more and more like a tool with every post you make.

I'm also wary of too much water, food, sunlight, and anything. How is that a bad thing? We should be wary. I am no more wary of logic than I am of these other things. I don't bow down to logic and treat it as a substitute God. I do not treat as a blasphemer anyone who criticizes logic.

You should probably use a little more logic than you do. Calling people names is not using logic.

bis bald,

Nick

Imagination without logic is useless daydreaming, in which pigs can fly, Jesus can rise, and Nick Otani can prove that too much logic is a bad thing.

Yes, logic without imagination is useless in situations where logic cannot reach, and it can be predictable and boring. (I've talked about this several times now and provided several examples. If Jameson had any imagination, he could think of a few himself.)

bis bald,

Nick

You asked me to prove that you were wary of logic. DONE!!! PROVED!!!! END OF FUCKING STORY!!!!!

You agreed with me that logic is a tool that we can use, not something which should control us.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick: "We should use logic, but like drugs and alcohol, it must be used with caution."

Imagination without logic is useless daydreaming, in which pigs can fly, Jesus can rise, and Nick Otani can prove that too much logic is a bad thing.

A hammer, like logic, is there to be used - and as long as you have a good grasp of it you shouldn't be afraid of it.

It's no surprise to me that you remain wary of it.

I'm not wary of hammers or logic, Jameson. I use logic a lot, more than you do, it seems.

bis bald,

Nick

And if you identify a method that produces contradictory or inconclusive results then you have identified a method which should not be used, logically, to get conclusive results.

Logic does produce contradictions and is often inconclusive. That is why we are free, not confined by logic.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick: "Is a hammer your friend, Jameson?"

A hammer, like logic, is there to be used - and as long as you have a good grasp of it you shouldn't be afraid of it.

It's no surprise to me that you remain wary of it.

Nick, I agree with some of what you express.

Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge", this says to me that logically building on knowledge wasn't enough for Einstein to make all of his discoveries and that imagination was required for at least some of them.

In that way we shouldn't be constrained by logic, however, if our ideas are logically impossible then we are deceiving ourselves if we consider them possible.

And if you identify a method that produces contradictory or inconclusive results then you have identified a method which should not be used, logically, to get conclusive results.

One can logically demonstrate weaknesses in logic.

bis bald,

Nick

By what means could you disprove logic?

Is a hammer your friend, Jameson?

bis bald,

Nick

"The senses are man's primary means of contact with reality; they give him the precondition of all subsequent knowledge, the evidence that something is. What the something is he discovers on the conceptual level of awareness." (aynrand.org)

But we can't always trust our senses, and we can't always trust logic. If you think we can, please prove it.

bis bald,

Nick

Well said, wngreen and Jameson.

"I think a hammer can often be a useful tool. We should use hammers, but like drugs and alcohol, it must be used with caution. We should not allow a hammer to use us.

Logic is our friend, Nick...

This is a fairly standard attack on perception. Omniscience is not a requirement, nor even possible, in observation. This is just a restatement of the view that human perception is unreliable because it is limited by the nature of sensory organs. Rand identified the fallacy of this argument quite succinctly: "man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears." Because sensory organs, like any other entity, have an identity they are limited in nature. They can not be asked to do anything more then what they do. Our ears tell us what we hear, not what is making the sound. Our eyes show us what we see. It is up to us to use that information and integrate it. "Epistemology exists because man is a limited fallible being who learns in disjointed incremental steps and who therefore requires a proper procedure to acquire the knowledge necessary to act, survive, and flourish." (Younkins)

"The senses are man's primary means of contact with reality; they give him the precondition of all subsequent knowledge, the evidence that something is. What the something is he discovers on the conceptual level of awareness." (aynrand.org)

Wm