Defects Of Pure Logic

[evildave]

Oh, bugger. That poll was supposed to be check multiple, but it "forgot" the setting when I refreshed it.

What are some of the defects of logical systems?

 

[sorgoth]

Just because you can't prove it's wrong doesn't mean it's right, dammit!

 

[evildave]

Ha! Of coarse it meens i'm rite! It sez sew in a buk!

 

[The idea]

Ha! Of course that means that I'm right! It says so in a book!

There are lots of books. Do you have any particular book in mind?

Side issue: are you sure that spelling and grammar correctness or incorrectness reliably indicate a corresponding truth or falsehood in the core of the message?

 

[evildave]

Do spelling and grammar correctness or incorrectness reliably indicate a corresponding truth or falsehood?

No.

It's just a 'heads up' indication. You look up and see the sky is cloudy. It probably won't rain, but it is a bit more likely than rain on a clear day.

Likewise, the presence of one or more logical fallacies does not prove a statement is false. ("Fallacy fallacy") It should simply catch your attention and indicate that there are probably other problems to be found.


As for the book: 'Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying' Ethel's friend Spimey quite clearly states it's so!

 

[Yahweh]

So many believe astrology? Why would so many believe if it wasnt true?

 

[The idea]

Likewise, the presence of one or more logical fallacies does not prove a statement is false. ("Fallacy fallacy") It should simply catch your attention and indicate that there are probably other problems to be found.

My understanding is that a logical fallacy is a defect in a construction that is intended to serve as a proof of something. Now, people typically attempt to construct proofs of things that they believe are true. If you are convinced that a statement is false, then you probably won't invest a lot of time on an effort to prove that the statement is true.

Now, a potential problem here is the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies. People can create elaborate pseudo-proofs with errors too subtle to find. People can create elaborate pseudo-fields-of-study. The following policy might help: sincerely look for proofs of things that you disbelieve and sincerely look for errors in proofs of things that you believe. May I suggest one day per week devoted to these two subpolicies?

 

[The idea]

Maybe I should emphasize this point: people believe first and attempt to construct proofs later. For example, consider Goldbach's conjecture.

6=3+3
8=3+5
10=5+5
12=5+7
14=7+7
16=3+13
18=5+13
20=3+17

You see, given an even number that is larger than 4, you can typically find two odd primes that sum to that even number.

Do you believe?

Pointer to the wise: don't attempt to speak your proof until you have it all worked out. Why: you don't want to lose credibility and you don't want people to become anti-Goldbach.

Where are the agnostics?

 

[evildave]

My understanding is that a logical fallacy is a defect in a construction that is intended to serve as a proof of something. Now, people typically attempt to construct proofs of things that they believe are true. If you are convinced that a statement is false, then you probably won't invest a lot of time on an effort to prove that the statement is true.

Now, a potential problem here is the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies. People can create elaborate pseudo-proofs with errors too subtle to find. People can create elaborate pseudo-fields-of-study. The following policy might help: sincerely look for proofs of things that you disbelieve and sincerely look for errors in proofs of things that you believe. May I suggest one day per week devoted to these two subpolicies?

Casual conversation is often fallacious as well. Ad hominem, etc. aren't generally found in scholarly 'proofs'. There are various fallacy articles and collections on the internet.

I would also tend to encourage people to do the opposites of their 'proofs'. If you believe something, work hard to disprove it.

At some point you have to stop, though. After all, you "prove" to yourself it's false, so now you have to "prove" to yourself it's true, and back and forth again.

 

[evildave]

The problem with most internet quizzes is, the solution is usually a quick electronic search away.

The original conjecture was that any three primes could be used, and '1' was considered a prime at the time. The answer would have been worth $1,000,000 between 2000 and 2002. Nobody claimed it.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldbachConjecture.html

A radio station had a daily trivia/quiz/riddle contest. I almost always had the answer with the first search. Then I would just *suffer* listening to the callers.