logic is cause and effect

His arguments, although articulate and fascinating, fall short of compelling. I will now deconstruct his arguments and show that he has failed to support the resolution. Firstly, my opponent agrees that logic is the study of the priniplces of correct reasoning. However, he then asserts that reason is the opposite of logic, and that there is no logic in fantasy. It is unclear how these statements are related to the resolution or his subsequent narrative. He first gives the example of poison being unhealthy, which apparently entails that 'don't eat poisonous things to stay healthy' is logical and 'eat poisonous things to say healthy' is wrong. In fact, 'Poison is unhealthy' doesn't entail 'One shouldn't eat poisonous things to stay healthy'. It requires the hidden assumption 'If something is unhealthy, one shouldn't eat it to stay healthy'. In any case, one case of logic that involves cause and effect doesn't mean all logic involve cause and effect, let alone that logic can be equated with cause and effect. My opponent then states that we cannot change logic, only our perceptions of it. I challenge this view. As Jackendoff (2012) stated, the principles we use in logic are ultimately based on human cognition. There's no way to prove our axiom that, for example, modus ponens is correct. He seems to believe that logic is an flawless entity 'out there' that cannot and will not change, but there is simply no evidence of such a system. Moreover, it is unclear how this statement relates to the resolution; if anything, added to the fact that I've shown that cause and effect is not a fixed concept, it disproves the resolution. The next paragraph is rather opaque. He did not respond to my challenge that the weathering example proves a disparity betwen cause and condition, the latter of which is essential to logic. My opponent then creates an equation in the form of specified [sic] cause + effect = orderrandom cause + effect = chaosorder + chaos = the sum of all logicYet these are bare assertions with no corroboration of any form. The terms used are, moreover, undefined and vague, particularly 'order'. Oddly, in the course of presenting these equations, my opponent contradicts the resolution: 'The cause you are at the library might not be logic at all'. He concedes that a cause may not be logic. For example two, my opponent misunderstands my argument. My first example demonstrates causation, and the second demonstrates conditions. Causation is transitive; conditions are not. My opponent is right that the second 'goes again' cause and effect - that's why cause and effect can't be conflated with logic. For example 3, my opponent confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. Both are sufficient conditions, but neither is necessary. Consider this scheme:T: The house is hit by a tsunami. O: The house is hit by a tornado. C: The house collapses. C -> T and C -> O are not true, since both disasters alone would have caused the collapse without the other. Thus, neither is a necessary condition (although they are sufficient conditions: O -> C and T -> C). To clarify, I meant in my preemption example that John is the cause of the movement of the original stationary ball. I hope this clears things up. My oponent proceeds to assert that nature is causation, that cause and effect have no beginning or end, and that cause and effect is 'necessity of motion'. Yet it's unclear how these are related to logic. As for the coin and marble experiment, I was trying to demonstrate that cause and effect is based on human psychology and not logic. Again, the conclusion from the experiment is that cause and effect is based on force dynamics. Frank's action was necessary for the coin to land tails, but it was not the cause of the coin landing tails. My opponent equates action an reaction to cause and effect. Within force dynamics, this does have some metaphorical value. He then states that intuition is reasoning. However, the relationship of either of these to logic has not been established. Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect. . but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic. Finally, he asserts that logic is only about physical and sensory experience. This is clearly untrue. For example, the following syllogism is deemed logical:P1) Unicorns are fluffy. P2) Fluffy things can time-travel. C) Unicorns can time-travel. I won't present the full logical proof here, as it is rather tedious, but this syllogism shows that objects absent in sensory experience can still be constrained by logic. ConclusionMy opponent has twice conceded that the resolution is false, did not refute any of my points, and failed to establish any coherent arguments for the resolution. (1) Jackendoff, R. (2012). A user's guide to thought and meaning. Oxford University Press.