logic is cause and effect

by the apple in my hand, i can tell if its good to eat, logic=matter=true This example has very little to do with logic. Logic is about the principles of correct reasoning. Looking at an apple (or feeling it in your hand), then making judgements about it, may make use of logical principles (e.g. a modus ponens: If an apple is black, then it's bad. This apple is black. Thus it's bad), but it is not inherently tied to logic. i like that you guys think you are somehow right about anything you say, while not even science has a foot in this gigantic spaceship from way beyond This is an ad hominem. I have never implied that I am somehow right about anything I say. As a debater (and, admittedly, a fairly inept one), I am more than willing to accept that I am sometimes wrong; in fact, I have often changed my opinions because of influence from others. This doesn't mean I should accept opinions that I do not find reasonable or well-supported. Besides, this is a debate after all: obstinacy is expected. a cause is a cause, define a cause and you have defined them all for the definition to fit a cause My opponent's new paraphrase has not improved clarity. What do you mean by define one, and you've defined them all? What is the definition? How is this related to equating logic with causation? mental emotions are 50/50, while there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy.. joy us pure My opponent again presents a bare assertion that mental emotions are 50/50 and joy is the only true positive emotion. It's not clear how this is related to the resolution. only statements can be true or false? is an apple a statement?sound is not a statment It's true that only statements can be true or false in logic. Truth value is actually a litmus test to test whether a string of words is a statement. (1) So no, apple isn't a statement, and has no truth value. 'Sound' isn't a statement either (though 'this argument is sound' is a statement). you simply... can not have an uncaused condition.. demonstrate an uncaused condition of any kind does exist Assuming that 'uncaused condition' refers to conditions that are not causes, I have already provided an example (under transitivity). I can give another example if you want. Handing in all my assignments is a necessary condition for me to get an A in my logic course, but it itself cannot cause me to get an A. the house and tsunami is an example of a mystery, logic is true It is not scientific to merely dismiss an exception as a 'mystery', instead of directly addressing why it seems to be inconsistent with your idea. Scientific theorists can leave out 'holes' in their theory to be resolved later, but only when the rest of their theory is well-supported enough. franks action is the cause that the coin landed tails by his actions.. very simple really If my opponent argues for this, he would have to explain why the majority of participants in the experiment judged that Frank did not cause the coin to land tails. He would have to adopt a version of semantic externalism even more extreme than Putnam's. Under Putnam's theory, he can't tell between elm and beech, but he still knows they're different and relies on an expert to know it. In short, he argues that the intentions of the two are the same in his head, but the extensions are not. However, for my opponent's opinion to stand, meaning is not only external of intention, but can also be inconsistent with people's judgement of the extensions of words. That would be inconsistent with our normal semantic triangle model of meaning (2). If my opponent decides to take up his extreme externalist stance, I can argue against that, but I first have to make sure my opponent really believes in such a stance, as I don't want to strawman him. male=boy(clearly not causation unless you want to argue that being male causes you to be a boy) My opponent is right that it certainly doesn't cause anything. However, under logic, me being a boy is a sufficient condition for me being male, and me being male is a necessary condition of me being a boy. (Incidentally, 'male' and 'boy' are not the same - one of the most famous examples in decompositional semantics is that words like 'boy' is made up of features like [+male], [+human] and [+young].) (3) no concession.. logic is absolute, logic is true, there is no true without cause and effect Again, I repeat this: logic cannot be true or false, only sound or unsound, complete or incomplete. A system of logic is sound iff in the case that A is derivable from B, B entails A; a system of logic is complete iff in the case that B entails A, A is derivable from B. Either way, logic cannot be 'true'. 'There is no true without cause and effect' is again a bare assertion, and I can provide a quick counterexample: analytic truths. The statement 'DDO either exists or doesn't exist' is an a priori truth that doesn't hinge on cause and effect. logic=log i see My opponent now presents a folk etymology, but it's inaccurate - the word is ultimately derived from Greek logike 'reasoning'. (1) Moreover, it's unclear how this is related to cause and effect. logic is true, reason is fantasy I repeat what I have written above: logic can't be true or false, and logical deduction is a type of reasoning, since logic studies the principles of correct reasoning. i have utterly refuted anything you have said.. awaiting my unchallenged profs to be refuted in any way I have challenged every pertinent point my opponent has hitherto raised. The onus is not on me to decipher or surmise the implications of points like 'loves ends with pain' if my opponent cannot demonstrate its relevance to the resolution. you are con... you show why i am wrong, i have no burden if you have no counter to present As the resolution is a positive statement and my opponent is on the Pro side, he has the burden of proof. Contrary to what my opponent has written, I have presented numerous rebuttals, but my opponent will not respond to most of them. I will note in passing that my opponent is no longer responding to a few of my counter-arguments, including the one for 'fantasy' and most of my accusations of irrelevance. (1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...(2) http://inmyownterms.com...(3) Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.(4) http://etymonline.com...