From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: logic? (was Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: ...))
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:09:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.122824.9843@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.224055.26806@midway.uchicago.edu>
>rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul27.183841.657891@locus.com> hayim@locus.com (Hayim
>>Hendeles) writes:
>
>>I've talked to them. They are not applying logic; they are applying
>>faulty mechanisms, the same as if you tried to multiply by adding ten
>>to both sides instead of by taking one of the numbers a repeated number
>>of times determined by the other number. The GIGO effect applies here
>>in spades: if you use incorrect math, of course you're going to get results
>>that are trash.
>
>>Choosing one's premises is a trick in itself. I mostly go by a couple of
>>rules-of-thumb already mentioned (Occam's Razor and the like; Humian
>>skepticism; my own sensory perception, a few other things) to try and
>>pick the ones that seem most probably true. This is always a risky
>>business; as most of the pure skeptics have demonstrated, probability
>>is a highly subjective concept, but there's no alternative, so I do my
>>best, as you do, as everyone does. I suspect you and I have different
>>opinions on what base premises are probable, but not as far different
>>as, for example, eithe rof us have from the Christians.
>
>This paragraph basically negates the high minded description of the
>logical process you use.  You simply cannot deny the emotional
>component involved in choosing what to call Jewish premises.
>
>As you say: "GIGO."
>
>This (from a "meta" logical perspective) in turn, denies any lack of bias
>in the logical system.

No; bias in picking what you're going to apply the system to does not
imply bias in the system. The logical component doesn't determine what
is true and was never meant to -- it determines what necessarily follows
from or conflicts with something else in the system.

If you're trying to add eight and six, the fact that you did not instead
chooose to add five and twelve may mean that you get a different answer
but in no way reflects on the quality of your arithmetic.

>>>In conclusion, it was human logic that brought upon us the Inquisition,
>>>Nazisim, and hosts of other evils. 
>
>>My Truth by Blatant Assertion meter just broke from input overload!!
>>Where in the h--- did you get *that* little concept? Back it up or drop
>>it, please -- *now*.
>
>Trivially simple using your own methodology.  While I might be willing to
>grant that they did use "flawed logic," that need not be the case.  All
>you need is to choose different basic premises and as flawless a logical
>system as you could want and you could get to the same conclusion as you
>would with flawed logic and/or flawed logical abilities.

Sure you can. But in that case it's the premises that are at fault, not
the application of logic. What Mr. Hendeles was asserting was that it
was *the logic itself* -- "it was human logic that brought us..", which
is patently untrue, as logic can't get you anywhere you didn't start to
begin with.
 
>By the way, is there a Hubris meter next to the broken "Truth by Blatant
>Assertion" meter?  If so, what's it reading after your statements on your
>own logical abilities?  Has your book even replaced Quine's?

Mr. Saal, you don't need to be capable of doing advanced calculus in
order to be completely sure that your ability to do basic arithmetic
is solid. If I'm faced with something like (A V ~A) =~T, I know it's
wrong the same way tha if I'm faced with 2+2=5 I know it's wrong; and
although I did work with one of Quine's better students, I don't need
that to get the easy ones.

>Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR saal@homxb.att.com

	-Nora