Results 1 to 40 of 92

Thread: Logic

Threaded View

  1. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Encrustacean View Post
    I see them both as skilled. They're two of the most socially adept forumite imo, but more importantly, they'd still seem skilled compared to real people if a fraction of their wherewithal carried offline. If this is normative ethics, then perhaps I truly am ethics polr...but maybe, in this case, ethics polr is represented on the forum in greater proportions than you could find elsewhere
    I actually am considering IEI heavily for you lately. You seeing your supervisor as skilled huuummm. Though socially it would only be their extraversion where they'd have an advantage over an IEI.

    And btw, nah, I don't think either is that extremely skilled. They are social, extraverted and all that, sure. But that's it.


    Sigh, no, I just explained poorly. I was trying to say:
    I can accept A therefore A as illogical (albeit true) given: You must alter the premise in some way in order to claim you've used logic
    Sure it's twisty, since truisms are generally.. well.. true
    This is directly relevant to the problem because iirc one of those "incorrect" solutions could be rewritten A therefore A.
    I understood you originally, but I find this idea too twisty, that is, I don't see the point in redefining what "logic" means. It was actually really weird, the idea itself (of redefining it), hence my asking if you were doing some Socionics stuff there.

    (I wasn't calling truisms "twisty".)

    And no, you remember wrong, that incorrect solution cannot be rewritten as "A therefore A". I'll try explaining more as to why.


    Okay I get why one and four are wrong..if you recall I wound up explaining this in chatbox to someone recently.
    And three is apparently the correct answer despite being the most outlandish
    But if you don't equate someone with "I" in the premise then what is that same I doing in the conclusion
    I don't understand your question/issue.

    The premise is this: "Someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians"".

    The incorrect answer (NOT a truism) we are discussing is this: "It's logically true when I kill all of the Gormagians".

    The "someone" in the premise is equated with "I" in that same premise since they are talking about themselves. The incorrect answer does not have "I" stated in a way that would clearly refer to this "someone".

    You can also consider it in this way: premise being "someone killed all the Gormagians" and incorrect conclusion being "I killed all the Gormagians". Clearly, "someone" is not necessarily "I".

    (Also, of course, when in my previous post to you I said "2. This requires equating this someone with "I"", I meant to refer to the conclusion only, not to the premise.)

    Does this help?


    that was kinda my point? Then I mean I could justify three, but it'd be a stretch when A because A is right fucking there in number two. I mean unless it's a tense thing?
    I was responding to your question on "Why did you not, instead, set them on a boat with red sails or make them wear funny hats?". Indicating that no one ever claimed that that option had to be excluded.


    not gonna open this can of worms not when societal self-awareness and new ideologies can so often be traced back to origins in fictional writing...not when all the progressive dictionary writers who are willing to include neologisms would disagree... No no no

    Great I feel like I opened it
    This isn't logically relevant here. Otoh, if you want, you could talk to me about this topic regardless of the formal logic issue being discussed here. (I do find it interesting.)


    can't remember? Let's assume I was being a fuckwit
    ah me too man, so many things dead from conception
    Lol ok.

    I did find the paradox reference interesting originally though.

    See, I am seeking your Ni+Fe


    I have trouble typing myself as anything rational
    agree



    Quote Originally Posted by Encrustacean View Post
    Because evil, sadistic Alioth compelled me to look up Dunning-Kruger, and because now I don't see how you can logic your way out of the truism conundrums, I'm going to go contemplate my ignorance, knowing that I might not have done so had I never been accidentally introduced to this new layer of metadoubt
    What truism conundrums? I see no conundrum.
    Last edited by Myst; 01-27-2017 at 11:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •