Right For The Wrong Reasons--The False Basis Fallacy.

Creating this, in part to keep a discussion from going off the rails, and in part because I'm curious as to what the community has to say.

If your argument isn't based in logic, but the conclusion is correct, should that argument be given any weight?

All I really have to say on the subject is what I learned in Philosophy 1010- To know something:

• You must believe it to be true
• It must be true
• You must have reason to believe that it's true.

Does an argument that doesn't fit all three deserve the same weight as one which does? Does it depend on the circumstances? In what situations are it OK to only have one or two of these support your argument?

edited 19th Mar '11 1:14:29 AM by Wulf

I argue that no, an argument that does not meet all three does not have the same wight as one that does and to claim otherwise is to deny reason itself.

Okay, quick sum up of my opinion from the other topic...

• All opinions are equal, however, you are more than allowed to be more persuasive than the rest.
• The majority will always pick what is best for it at that time. This means there's going to be Values Dissonance since what the majority thought will be different over time, but how we are now, it worked its way towards.
• Even without a democracy, the majority will still force its ideals into society, thus why lower classes in many developing countries have a tendency to rob, they want more equality as far as basic necessities go.
• Logic can't always be trusted, even if it's a good guideline. Reality has a tendency to be rather spontaneous at times for whatever reason, logic can't always help you while the majority can work together and survive (or perish together, in which case, there's a new majority).

The trouble with working solely on logic is that you will always have a small group who will decide what is 'logical' and therefore what will become law. There you are, letting a very small amount of people decide and enforce law on everybody else. Does no one else see a problem with that?

When you guys say «logic», do you mean, like, formal logic, because you can kind of prove jack shit with it (in the real world). Which is why I'm pretty skeptical of that word nowadays.

edited 19th Mar '11 1:41:49 AM by Tzetze

When I say logic I am not talking about Spock and talking about scientific reason and deduction.

Does that clarify it sufficiently or do I need to elaborate further?

That's the logic I'm referring to. If A then B. Which I might mention, can be easily misconstrued by the minority.

Not really to be honest. If it's none of those things, then what is it?

edited 19th Mar '11 1:44:42 AM by Usht

also

Purple monkey dishwasher, therefore 2+2=4. Purple monkey dishwasher, therefore you should vote Tzetze for Secretary-General. Gonna go with no here.

edited 19th Mar '11 1:46:28 AM by Tzetze

@ Usht: I believe he's saying "I am not talking about Spock; I'm talking about scientific reasoning and deduction"

We have a Straw Vulcan trope! Explainingness!

Well that makes more sense, except it still doesn't tell me how pure that logic is. Are you literally going to be doing experiments and controls for every situation or what?

edited 19th Mar '11 1:48:27 AM by Usht

Not for every situation, most situations are not so new/complex/baffling that a full study needs to be carried out each time. Assuming you know the physical rules involved you can extrapolate an answer based on previous data.

Experiments/control studies etc are for when you need specific answers for a specific situation or you encounter something new/unexplained that does not fit previous data.

EDIT: Take the discovery of the planet Neptune for example. When Uranus was discovered it was observed as having peculiarities in it's orbit, rather retesting everything they new about space to explain it they looked at previous data and said "This looks consistent with Uranus being acted on by the gravity pull of another planet even further out, based on what we know of gravity we can deduce that said planet should be in Spot X". Lo and behold when they checked Spot X they discovered Neptune, a correct conclusion drawn from acting on previous data. Only if Spot X had shown not to contain the Planet Neptune would new experiments have been necessary you see?

edited 19th Mar '11 2:00:28 AM by Capt.Fargle

Yeah, but how do you know you're accounting for all (or at least most of) the variables? No two situations are ever truly the same and in doing your research as a small group, you might have easily missed something (and thus why we didn't have laser until pretty recently).

Scientists usually prefer to ignore things that don't fit existing theories, rather than investigate. The world is a freaky place and they can't really be bothered chasing after the weird stuff that doesn't happen very often; they prefer nice, predictable curves and dismiss the stuff that doesn't fit as being merely 'anomalous'. Unless there might be recognition or a grant in it.

Generalities, not specifics, are the name of the game.

edited 19th Mar '11 2:03:45 AM by InverurieJones

oh, and Wulf, was your philosophy 1010 class doxastic? I love that stuff.

B(∃p(Bp&B¬Bp))

edited 19th Mar '11 2:04:04 AM by Tzetze

Okay, so at this point in time, I can't see any problems with logic itself. But what about who determines what is logical? Who gets that duty?

why does everybody mix up deductive and inductive logics, you can't even prove one from the other.

@Tze Tze- Phoo... (un?)fortunately we only went over the basics of philosophy. Did units on reasoning, knowledge, identity, individual philosophers, that sort of thing.

Answering from the other thread:

Sources are irrelevant. They give reason to examine something first, but nothing more than that. Foregoing a conclusion based on sources rather than scrutiny is illogical.

It's a democracy, so yes.

Now as for how the democracy law came to be mentioned in the first place, that's another deal; however if the people in office are religious, and were voted in, then it is within the functions of the system that they can bring up such a law in the first place.

{disclaimer time}

Is this system perfect? Obviously not. Democracy definitely does not seem to be the ultimate system of government. There is little that can be done about this though. Every government has flaws, and these flaws are inherent to democracy. We cannot bar the religious from the system in any way, so that means there is only one way to get your ideals cemented in reality: by voting for *the right people* and changing enough minds to support *your* cause.

Actually, the black people would have been part of the democratic system as we know it today. And had they been able to vote, I'm quite confident that any slavery would have lasted. A different point would have probably stood better.

Next, it would seem you have something of a superiority complex going on here. The conclusion that you reach through logic is not the only reason, and while you may be able to make a point that secular ideas should be given more initial weight, that does not somehow eliminate religious individuals from being logical. Your logic is not their logic, and likewise, the converse is true.

Also, emotion is a concept that is possible to be a part of logic. The Straw Vulcan is used in fiction to show how logic is inferior to emotion. What is flawed about that trope, is the fact that it glosses over the fact that emotion and desires *are* counted by logic, science, ethics, all of that jazz.

So that is why you are so upset. Gayngst and all that. I was going to ask, but oh well. (sorry for sounding so trivial about it)

Back to this thread

Well, the people and those in office.

Problem is, they are religious, so... this doesn't really work. The only way for Fargle to "win" is if they push forward their ideals and convince enough people to agree.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:45:15 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Logic isn't a thing that can be dictated or decided. It just is, like math or science. No one went up on a mountaintop and declared to the world that 1 + 1 = 2 or E = mc^2, those are just facts. Similarly, no one had to invent or create the fact that if A implies B, then B is true if A is true. That's just how the world works.

It's pretty easy to redefine terms such that 1+1≠2, and e=mc² only applies for systems with zero momentum.

@Anonym: There is no such thing as "My" logic and "Your" logic. Logic is purely binary, there is logic and illogic, nothing else.

@Tzetse: 1 + 1 always = 2 no matter what you do. Changing terminology does not change the properties of the units involved. Just because you call it "cow" does not mean it is no longer "one" it just means you're calling it something else.

There's a trope for that.

1 + 1 always = 2 for specific definitions of equality and the addition operator, but then sqargle(kifw) >< benari[&] for an appropriately defined system. Neither are compelling on their own.

I disagree with the mindset that logic is binary. I feel it's more accurate to call it a map with the destination being accuracy.