At 6/15/09 07:56 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: It's just that it's never really clear how much of said logic is in fact personal.

Yes it is. Everyone can examine the facts, and everyone can ask you to explain your reasoning. Logical fallacies are easy to spot if you know what you're looking for.

It's even easier to say that a decision made was a stupid one in hindsight and even more so to reject decision on personal bias. Of course you're going to assume your decisions are more logical then everyone else's.

That's also why, in a rational society, you would discuss decisions with others that those decisions would affect.

Also, in a stricter sense, there's not a "more logical" or "less logical" decision. There are decisions with logical faults and ones without. Yes, some decisions will end up being incorrect, but the point is to strive to make the best decision possible based on the information available, and to exclude personal bias from your reasoning.

I'm really starting to get the feeling that most people don't know what logic actually is.

Look at Hitler and the Jews. Didn't Hitler succeed in building a strong dominant nation only to be took down when the rest of the world jumped it? Didn't he get away with killing countless people?

If emotion is a weakness and Nazi Germany is built upon it, howcome it has grown so big?

Hitler Hitler Hitler, why must we bring him up in EVERY ARGUMENT? (Yes I already know about Godwin's law, just STOP DOING IT.)

Emotion is not necessarily a weakness, it's just a hindrance to making a rational decision. In the example you've given, Hitler used emotional appeals to gain support for the idea of killing all Jews, which he clearly couldn't have gotten away with if everyone wanted him to explain himself.

Saying emotion isn't a weakness because Nazi Germany got big is like saying stupidity isn't a weakness because you know a really dumb guy who can lift 400 pounds. You're just equivocating the use of the word "weakness" in a different context.

c.f. Pep rally

At 6/15/09 09:49 AM, Elfer wrote: Logical fallacies are easy to spot if you know what you're looking for.

And any one who wants to look for one, will find one.

That's also why, in a rational society, you would discuss decisions with others that those decisions would affect.

If you need to do this for every decision, no work will get done like ever.

Hitler Hitler Hitler, why must we bring him up in EVERY ARGUMENT? (Yes I already know about Godwin's law, just STOP DOING IT.)

Actually, I just took this to focus on his example. I might have as well taken something else.

At 6/15/09 10:14 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 6/15/09 09:49 AM, Elfer wrote: Logical fallacies are easy to spot if you know what you're looking for.

And any one who wants to look for one, will find one.

No, you can only find one if it's actually THERE.

The idea of this topic is to talk about a society that acts rationally, not one full of stupid people who are all after their own agenda and express it in a convoluted way.

If you need to do this for every decision, no work will get done like ever.

Okay fine, how about: If you're not sure you're making an unbiased decision, don't act unilaterally.

At 6/15/09 08:29 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:
Or even. Is it logical to be logical?

I think that you HAVE to use some sort of broken logic, or at least compromise your logic, in order to make things work. Like, unless you want to be anal.

Godel incompleteness theorem

At 6/15/09 10:39 AM, Elfer wrote: The idea of this topic is to talk about a society that acts rationally, not one full of stupid people who are all after their own agenda and express it in a convoluted way.

Still I stay with my initial question whether or not true objective logic actually exist. Because rationalising actions is not that hard a task.

At 6/15/09 01:42 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Still I stay with my initial question whether or not true objective logic actually exist. Because rationalising actions is not that hard a task.

I just said earlier that making a rational choice and rationalizing an action are two different things. One involves examining evidence first then making a decision, the other is making a decision then mining for evidence.

DIFFERENT STUFF GUYS.

At 4/13/09 08:16 AM, generalwinter wrote:

At 4/13/09 08:11 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Newgrounds, do you think that a goverment based purely upon logic, and critical path analysis would work to be a fully functioning society?

Just the government? No, because the citizens would not do things for the greater good based on logic.

"The greater good" and "logic" aren't always the same thing, though. It is not the government's job, in my opinion (and the opinion of the framers of the constitution) to look out for 'the greater good'. The only 'greater good' is the 'betterment and contentment of self'. That's what the idea of liberty pertains to. Our society is one that encourages mediocrity and this bullshit idea of 'brother's keeper' - all in the name of some 'greather good'.

At 4/13/09 10:32 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/13/09 10:28 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: What punishment does she deserve?

No killer deserves punishment. They deserve study and evaluation, and help.

Oh, jesus christ. Let someone kill, in cold blood, someone you love - and we'll see how long you sing that bullshit.

At 4/13/09 11:36 AM, Bighead8 wrote: Lets face it, humans are illogical, flawed, violent, and yes, stupid. Because of this, this "logical society" can never exist.

So you admit, openly on the internets, that you yourself are incapble of logic?
You know, I see what you mean. However you came to draw the premise that caused you to make such a statement, it truely and obviously did not draw from logic.

At 4/13/09 01:14 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Besides, it's just kinda funny to me how some people seem to equate logicality with this idea that the reasoning must be perfect because it's based on some sequential logical process. Logic can and often is frought with mistakes... hell, that's one of the reasons why the Latin language still gets any burn: for giving fancy-sounding names to all the numerous, different types of fallacious reasoning out there.

Sure. Without a doubt, logic has the same probability of failure as anything else. The difference is that when a chain of logic finds a flaw in itself, it must immediatly correct it to continue to call itself 'logic'. Emotion, on the other hand, will recognize a flaw and either or ignore it, deny it, or even expound it as something to be called 'correct'. Look at the man cheating on his wife, acting on lust and need instead of logic. Look at the man who beats his wife until she either leaves him or puts him in jail, acting on anger and insecurity. Both men know very well that their actions are illogical, immoral, and dangerous to self interest. And yet the behavior continues.
Everything fails, at times. This can be said about almost any premise, or theory, or chain of reasoning. Being able and more than willing to correct those flaws, though, is the difference from Heart and Mind.

And I don't know what this idiot idea of 'logic cannot enjoy a fine meal or sexual intercourse' is all about, either. Doing what is logical does not exclude doing what is pleasurable. Unless, of course, your pleasure includes prostitues and cocaine. I can't help you there.
Logic simply means doing what is most efficient on a given action, idea, or chain of events. Falling in love is not illogical. Getting married is not illogical. Having sex is not illogical. Logic is reasoning. To reason is to justify, correctly, the root or cause of something. How does any of that mean 'machine' to people? What the hell are you people proposing? Anti-logic? Pro-impulsiveness? Living by lust and anger and fear alone?
This little mantra of 'live by heart and never by mind' seems to be what's wrong with a lot of society. Feel, don't think, right? Not only are you not living by logic, you're condemning the very idea of an individual even attempting to live by logic?

:Pffffft

At 6/16/09 02:21 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 4/13/09 08:16 AM, generalwinter wrote:

At 4/13/09 08:11 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

At 4/13/09 10:32 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/13/09 10:28 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: What punishment does she deserve?

No killer deserves punishment. They deserve study and evaluation, and help.

Oh, jesus christ. Let someone kill, in cold blood, someone you love - and we'll see how long you sing that bullshit.

They still deserve help. It would be the emotional, irrational and illogical side that would say "No, they don't deserve any study or help."

At 6/16/09 03:50 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: They still deserve help. It would be the emotional, irrational and illogical side that would say "No, they don't deserve any study or help."

Do both. Study them while they rot on death row, and on the day of execution, find someone else to study.

At 6/16/09 02:21 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: when a chain of logic finds a flaw in itself, it must immediatly correct it to continue to call itself 'logic'. Emotion, on the other hand, will recognize a flaw and either or ignore it, deny it, or even expound it as something to be called 'correct'.

No. I realize you're typing in short-hand here but the result is just too dishonest. Your phrasing personifies logic and emotion as entities after their own goals, and pushes them into a false dichotomy.

Emotion will recognize a flaw? What kind of flaw? An emotional flaw? What's that? Or a logical flaw? Wouldn't that then be logic recognizing a logical flaw... but then reacting emotionally? Oh right. But logic can't be emotional... it's logic.

See what happens when you cut out the human being?

There is one major flaw in a couple of the peoples arguments here-

Logic is not subjective. People are.

It was not logical for Hitler to kill Jews, however it was logical for us to retaliate against him. Originally, when he just killed the weak, old, or disabled, that was logical, if they were not of use to society. This does not make it morally justifyable, but it does make it logical. What he did next however, when he went to kill ALL Jews, that was illogical.

And also rationality. In a way, rationality is more important than logic, and logic is more important than rationality, if you understand.

One cannot exist without the other, in that Logic, which is making decisions based on science and pure thinking, and rationality, making decisions based upon fact, and science proves fact an vice-versa.

It would be perfect if people were ruled by "Logical rationality", in that every decision that they made was based on clear thinking and proven facts.

Kinda kills invention though, so it would be logical for some people to have the hint of illogicality.