Proof of logic

[cyborg]

Ok, so why is this the choice of the wrong logic?

Well it's wrong if you want to formulate good explanations about the observable phenomena that occur around us.

We just have to ask the indian man for the meaning of the symbols.

And in what form will he give us that meaning?

If he just gives a whole bunch more of symbols are we any closer to getting any actual meaning? Or is it just sufficient that we go around saynig, "have you realised the boogie in the shmoogie yet?" with others nodding along for fear of looking stupid if they don't have a clue what it means and then passing on the meaningless nonsense to others to appear wise, "I've boogied my shmookie! Have you?"

You do that often enough and you drain language of any capacity to communicate meaningful ideas at all.

 

[drkitten]

Ok, so why is this the choice of the wrong logic? It is a proof that "boogie is shmookie", whatever it means. We just have to ask the indian man for the meaning of the symbols.

Ah, yes, the "you can't get out of the dictionary problem."

Asking the guru for the meanings won't work because that will simply give you more undefined words. Think of it this way. If I give you a Martian dictionary -- not a Martian to English dictionary, but the Martian equivalent of Websters or the OED, but without pictures -- could you learn the Martian language from it? After all, every word in the dictionary comes with a definition. So if you're not sure what xozblat means, you can just look it up. But at no point will it connect with any words or concepts that are meaningful to you.

 

[JetLeg]

Well, maybe you will have to the guru's ashram for years to learn the meaning of the words.

There are two different issues - do you agree that it is a way to prove "boogie is shmookie", and the second is how we understand it AFTER it has been proven.

 

[Yiab]

Where does the indian man explanation has a post-hoc-ergo-proper-hoc fallacy? He stated beforehand, that due to realizing atman is brahman happiness is achieved, not after the meditation.

If I say "my toes are actually gigantic yellow tyrannosaurs engaged in a battle to the death, therefore meditation on this will lead to happiness" then proceed to meditate and become happy, would you agree that I have proven that my toes are actually gigantic yellow tyrannosaurs engaged in a battle to the death?

This is precisely post hoc ergo propter hoc, let me make it more formal.
A = "atman is brahman"
B = "you meditate on this truth"
C = "you become happy"
The hypothetical indian man in your example said:
[latex]$A \rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)$[/latex]
There are actually two instances of the post hoc fallacy here. First, he became happy after meditating, therefore he assumed that the happiness was because of the meditation, that is he decided:
[latex]$C$, $B\rightarrow C$ therefore $B$[/latex]
Further, he then said that since his conclusion was correct, his assumption must also be correct, so he said:
[latex]$B\rightarrow C$, $A\rightarrow(B\rightarrow C)$ therefore $A$[/latex]

Formally, he used the logical fallacy "affirming the consequent" twice, in non-formal contexts this is usually referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

 

[cyborg]

Well, maybe you will have to the guru's ashram for years to learn the meaning of the words.

And maybe it's all just the equivalent of ancient marketing speak - big full and impressive sounding words underpinned by... more big full and impressive sounding words where you are made to feel stupid if you don't understand them.

Synergise that if you can.

do you agree that it is a way to prove "boogie is shmookie",

JetLeg you are clearly not getting this: you can prove anything. It is really rather trivial to construct a logic where that string of symbols would be 'proven'.

and the second is how we understand it AFTER it has been proven.

Ah yes - what's that called again?

post hoc ergo propter hoc

You've got to start from first principles, not start from the conclusions and then try to build a system to fit them.

 

[drkitten]

Well, maybe you will have to the guru's ashram for years to learn the meaning of the words.

There are two different issues - do you agree that it is a way to prove "boogie is shmookie", and the second is how we understand it AFTER it has been proven.

No, the two issues are related. One of the main reasons it's not an acceptable proof is because it's not meaningful, regardless of whether it's logically sound.

 

[JetLeg]

A = "atman is brahman"
B = "you meditate on this truth"
C = "you become happy"
The hypothetical indian man in your example said:
[latex]$A \rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)$[/latex]
There are actually two instances of the post hoc fallacy here. First, he became happy after meditating, therefore he assumed that the happiness was because of the meditation, that is he decided:
[latex]$C$, $B\rightarrow C$ therefore $B$[/latex]

Listen, you CAN know sometimes that if you eat yoghurt, you have a stomach ache. Right? Or, that if you go to forests, you feel happy. You cannot know that from a single occasion of eating, or going to the forests, but you have enough experience with yourself to rule other factors after several "expiriments".

Agreed so far?

So, the indian can 'run' a control group on himself - not meditating, meditating on different things, eating mushrooms - so he can know what exactly causes the meditation.

The only thing we have to assume is that he is not lying.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[cyborg]

Listen, you CAN know sometimes that if you eat yoghurt, you have a stomach ache. Right? Or, that if you go to forests, you feel happy. You cannot know that from a single occasion of eating, or going to the forests, but you have enough experience with yourself to rule other factors after several "expiriments".

*Sigh* You are not getting it.

Effect follows cause, but that does not mean what you *think* caused the effect actually caused it. That is what the fallacy is all about - co-incidental occurrences and invalid backward chaining.

So is it the yoghurt per se that caused the ache? Is it the forest per se that caused the happiness? What is the actual explanation for these feelings?

The only thing we have to assume is that he is not lying.

No. He is biased. It is irrelevant whether or not he is 'lying' - he is biased to interpret the symbols he sees as causative as causative because of the (flawed) hypothesis created.

This is the whole damn problem - you mind literally cannot tell the difference between symbols that are meaningful and those that are not. Therefore you MUST be blind to them in order to prevent your brain creating incorrect assumptions.

 

[JetLeg]

*Sigh* You are not getting it.

Effect follows cause, but that does not mean what you *think* caused the effect actually caused it. That is what the fallacy is all about - co-incidental occurrences and invalid backward chaining.

So is it the yoghurt per se that caused the ache? Is it the forest per se that caused the happiness? What is the actual explanation for these feelings?



No. He is biased. It is irrelevant whether or not he is 'lying' - he is biased to interpret the symbols he sees as causative as causative because of the (flawed) hypothesis created.

This is the whole damn problem - you mind literally cannot tell the difference between symbols that are meaningful and those that are not. Therefore you MUST be blind to them in order to prevent your brain creating incorrect assumptions.

I agree that you can't deduce cause from effect, just because it follows. But, what you need to do, is run a few "tests". For example

I eat yoghurt and my stomach hurts.

Did it hurt before?
Is there anything else I ate?

Ok, lets try again on another day. Does it happen again?

Now lets try it in another room. Does it happen again.

THEN you can conclude it without a fallacy. Otherwise you are saying that it is impossible to understand cause-effect relationship.

 

[cyborg]

But, what you need to do, is run a few "tests".

Good. You agree empiricism is a sensible way of doing things.

I eat yoghurt and my stomach hurts.

Did it hurt before?
Is there anything else I ate?

Ok, lets try again on another day. Does it happen again?

Now lets try it in another room. Does it happen again.

Your protocol lacks rigor to say the least.

THEN you can conclude it without a fallacy.

Can you? What is there is some other underlying medicial condition which is merely exacerbated by eating? You provided no control therefore concluding the yoghurt is a causal agent is premature.

Just like concluding the "atman in the bratman" or whatever is the reason for people getting happy when meditating on it. There is no control and there cannot be without blinding - trying to self-control does not work. No one can do it. NO ONE.

 

[JetLeg]

Good. You agree empiricism is a sensible way of doing things.



Your protocol lacks rigor to say the least.



Can you? What is there is some other underlying medicial condition which is merely exacerbated by eating? You provided no control therefore concluding the yoghurt is a causal agent is premature.

Just like concluding the "atman in the bratman" or whatever is the reason for people getting happy when meditating on it. There is no control and there cannot be without blinding - trying to self-control does not work. No one can do it. NO ONE.

Please tell me what confounding factors might cause the happiness. I think it is very reasonable for someone to find out that meditation causes him hapiness?

 

[JetLeg]

Good. You agree empiricism is a sensible way of doing things.



Your protocol lacks rigor to say the least.



Can you? What is there is some other underlying medicial condition which is merely exacerbated by eating? You provided no control therefore concluding the yoghurt is a causal agent is premature.

Just like concluding the "atman in the bratman" or whatever is the reason for people getting happy when meditating on it. There is no control and there cannot be without blinding - trying to self-control does not work. No one can do it. NO ONE.

Please tell me what confounding factors might cause the happiness. I think it is very reasonable for someone to find out that meditation causes him hapiness.

 

[drkitten]

But, what you need to do, is run a few "tests". For example

I eat yoghurt and my stomach hurts.

Did it hurt before?
Is there anything else I ate?

Ok, lets try again on another day. Does it happen again?

Now lets try it in another room. Does it happen again.

THEN you can conclude it without a fallacy. Otherwise you are saying that it is impossible to understand cause-effect relationship.

Yes, that's exactly what cyborg is saying -- and that's one of the reasons that "logic" can be so tricky. Because it is impossible to understand cause-effect relationships, which is one reason that scientists sometimes get stuff wrong.

As a simple example -- you probably didn't know that I replaced your steel spoon with one made from a tricky metallic arsenic mixture. You're getting sick every time you eat yoghurt, not from the yoghurt, but from the spoon you use to eat yoghurt with. The yoghurt didn't cause the ache. There are always alternative hypotheses that need to be considered, and "running a few tests" will never give you enough information to exclude all of them.

Yes, this means that the scientitic method is one big exercise in post hoc ergo propter hoc and fundamentally fallacious. Science is unsound; it's possible to exercise the scientific method properly and still come to a wrong conclusion. That's one reason that scientists don't take formal logic that seriously; it's an inappropriately strict standard, because getting something right 99.9% of the time is good enough for most scientists. Any line of reasoning that can possibly go wrong is technically fallacious, even if it's right sometimes (or even most of the time).

In an earlier post I wrote:

Excellent. We have just what you want in stock -- I recommend first-order predicate calculus. It has exactly the property you need; it's "sound." It's also a nice, friendly, easy to use logic with wide application -- a good entry-level logic. I doubt you'll go very far wrong with that.

However, some of our (ahem) more specialized clientele have more, um, sophisticated needs into which "soundness" doesn't enter. A colleague of mine, for example, is interested in an automated hypothesis generator that will scan databases and propose hypothesis for investigation, and he's not as interested in "soundness" as he is in other aspects such as plausibility.

My colleague is, as you might expecte, a scientist. He's not as interested in not-going-wrong as going-in-an-interesting-direction. Of course, "right" is interesting -- but so is some stuff that's "wrong" but we don't know it yet.

 

[Mashuna]

Please tell me what confounding factors might cause the happiness. I think it is very reasonable for someone to find out that meditation causes him hapiness?

JetLeg, I'm very confused by your notion of logic in two of the threads you've started. In one thread (Is It), you're arguing that because one can't disprove the existance of an immaterial, non-consequential god, it's as likely to be true as not. Your standard there for disproving something is ridiculously high.

In this thread, you seem to be happy to accept a causal link between someone claiming meditation causes happiness, therefore Atman is Brahman. Your standard for proving something is ridiculously low (as well as logically flawed).

 

[drkitten]

Please tell me what confounding factors might cause the happiness.

Mild arthritis. Not moving = not irritating the joints = not being in low-level pain = happiness.

One simple example.

Ear troubles. Being in a quiet room = not irritating his ears through sound = not being in low-level pain = happiness.

Another simple example.

Stretching. Assuming a meditative posture = releasing endorphins due to muscle activity = happiness.

A third simple example.

Need more? I could come up with these all day; identifying potential confounds and alternate causes is a professional skill for anyone who really does empirical studies.

 

[JetLeg]

Mild arthritis. Not moving = not irritating the joints = not being in low-level pain = happiness.

One simple example.

Ear troubles. Being in a quiet room = not irritating his ears through sound = not being in low-level pain = happiness.

Another simple example.

Stretching. Assuming a meditative posture = releasing endorphins due to muscle activity = happiness.

A third simple example.

Need more? I could come up with these all day; identifying potential confounds and alternate causes is a professional skill for anyone who really does empirical studies.

Please do more. I assume

-1- that the meditators are genuinely interested in finding out whether meditation causes them the mental states, or something else
-2- are intellectualy honest
-3- meditate quite a lot, so they can weed out confounding factors

The examples you gave are very good for one-time positive meditation experience, but not for long-life intellectually sincere intelligenent meditators. (I am talking about tibetan buddhists - you can google "Mind and Life institute")

 

[cyborg]

Please do more. I assume

-1- that the meditators are genuinely interested in finding out whether meditation causes them the mental states, or something else
-2- are intellectualy honest
-3- meditate quite a lot, so they can weed out confounding factors

NO ONE is exempt from bias.

NO ONE.

 

[JetLeg]

JetLeg, I'm very confused by your notion of logic in two of the threads you've started. In one thread (Is It), you're arguing that because one can't disprove the existance of an immaterial, non-consequential god, it's as likely to be true as not. Your standard there for disproving something is ridiculously high.

In this thread, you seem to be happy to accept a causal link between someone claiming meditation causes happiness, therefore Atman is Brahman. Your standard for proving something is ridiculously low (as well as logically flawed).

To be completely honest - it seems to me that it is related to the fact, that I would love something not to be disproved in IS IT thread, and would love something to be proved in this thread.

But, nevertheless, my arguments seem to make sense to me in both of the threads, so I will not do an ad-hominem to myself.

 

[drkitten]

Please do more. I assume

-1- that the meditators are genuinely interested in finding out whether meditation causes them the mental states, or something else
-2- are intellectualy honest
-3- meditate quite a lot, so they can weed out confounding factors

Unfortunately, the second half of your third assumption is simply wrong. No finite amount of experimentation can weed out the infinite number of possible alternative hypotheses. (This particular observation goes all the way back to the logical positivists and before, but it was framed in its most strident form by Popper and Quine.)

That's why "replication" is a key factor in empirical science, but not in "logic"; it would be a very good idea for me (as a bench scientist) to replicate some of the classic findings in my field of study as part of my research program. On the other hand, I have no need to re-prove the classic logical findings, because logical findings are typically "sound" in the sense defined above; there's no possibility that Godel got his Completeness Theorem wrong, but there's a very definite possibility that Milliken got the mass of the electron wrong.

 

[Yiab]

Listen, you CAN know sometimes that if you eat yoghurt, you have a stomach ache. Right? Or, that if you go to forests, you feel happy. You cannot know that from a single occasion of eating, or going to the forests, but you have enough experience with yourself to rule other factors after several "expiriments".

Agreed so far?

No. No matter how many times the second event follows the first you cannot strictly logically conclude that the implication is valid. Within real life you can reasonably assume that the implication holds, in fact you can hold that assumption strongly enough that the alternative never really crosses your mind, but that does not prove anything about the logical status of the implication.

So, the indian can 'run' a control group on himself - not meditating, meditating on different things, eating mushrooms - so he can know what exactly causes the meditation.

The only thing we have to assume is that he is not lying.

Thanks for the explanation.

A "control" group would have to consist of many people from many different backgrounds at many different stages of life with different neurochemical balances and, preferably, with different assumptions about the nature of reality going into the experiment. It would then need some verifiable and repeatable method of inducing a meditative state and of measuring an individual's happiness. All of these things could (in principal) be done in reality, but none of this affects the strictly logical status of the implication in question.

Additionally, even if every single one of the people, after having meditation reliably induced, attained a measurably high level of happiness in a reasonable and pre-defined length of time thereafter, you could only scientifically conclude that meditation in that specific manner probably induces happiness. Even if meditation induces happiness that says nothing about whether or not "atman is brahmin" - just because that was the reason to try meditating doesn't mean it is even supported by the hypothetical result.

I agree that you can't deduce cause from effect, just because it follows. But, what you need to do, is run a few "tests". For example

I eat yoghurt and my stomach hurts.

Did it hurt before?
Is there anything else I ate?

Ok, lets try again on another day. Does it happen again?

Now lets try it in another room. Does it happen again.

THEN you can conclude it without a fallacy. Otherwise you are saying that it is impossible to understand cause-effect relationship.

Were you sitting down every time you ate yoghurt? If so, sit down to read a book - does your stomach hurt again?
Were you always eating the same flavour of yoghurt?
Were you always eating the same brand of yoghurt?
Were you always eating yoghurt on an empty stomach?
Were you always in the same emotional state when eating yoghurt?
Were you always eating yoghurt at the same time of day?
Were you always eating yoghurt at the same altitude above sea level?
Were you always eating yoghurt in the same manner (i.e. slowly, one spoonful at a time or were you freezing it and swallowing it in a single chunk)?
Were you always standing up in the same way after eating the yoghurt?
Are you an idiot (i.e. did you punch yourself in the stomach soon after each time you ate yoghurt)?
How long was the yoghurt sitting in the fridge before you ate it?
Was the yoghurt sitting in the fridge before you ate it?
Eat an apple - does your stomach hurt?
Drink some milk - does your stomach hurt?
Eat some chicken - does your stomach hurt?
Filter the yoghurt for 3-inch long iron screws - did you find any?
Try yoghurt packaged in a different substance - does your stomach hurt again?
Get a friend to randomly line up 100 containers, 50 of which contain yoghurt and 50 of which contain an inert substance which is indistinguishable from yoghurt through sight, sound, touch, taste or smell - can you reliably tell which ones are yoghurt based on whether or not your stomach hurts?

After all that, I would say you can scientifically conclude that yoghurt makes your stomach hurt with very high likelihood. However, that does not prove anything about the logical status of the implication.