|
Main Straw Vulcan Discussion
Hume wasn't saying emotion was a better guide than reason, he was saying that to use reason you must already have a want, which can only be the work of emotion.
Removed, because it does not seem to be an example of the trope.
- Unfortunately Truth In Television in certain parts of the Internet: chastising people with...issues and encouraging them to kill themselves through insults and putdowns. When they're not passing it off as "ironic", they often use excuses like "natural selection" or "cleansing the gene pool". Let that sink in for a second. They talk about survival of the fittest while sitting at home on a computer.
- Which is not actually (entirely) hypocritical because the "fittest" translates to "the most able and competent" rather than "the most physically fit." Usually, the meaning of the two is quite close (as physical excellence certainly helps one be able to cope with the selection that culls the herd, particularly when established order breaks down), but it is not exactly synonymous. A Darwinian analysis might indeed place the fat, looser, arrogant middle school internet troll over the fit athlete if that analysis is conducted to measure for, say, ability to survive and adapt on an online marketplace or in other technical fields. Though many of the individuals making such claims cannot justify it even that way.
T He last line in the examples is a short sentence and a link to a long article that seems to have nothing to do with this page. I'm gonns go ahead and delete it.
Are the Vulcans of Star Trek the trope namers for Straw Vulcan?
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about "logic" as if it were just careful or rigorous reasoning, which may cause confusion because logic
often refers to formal systems of reasoning/deduction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
"The story assumes that anything which doesn't fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn't 'logical'.
For instance, assuming that 'logic' means 'using syllogisms'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called 'illogical', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don't use syllogisms all the time."
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning — drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one's way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term "logic" basically does refer to something like "informal logic" or "rigorous reasoning", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
When Spock says “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” — this isn't a truth of logic. It might be a truth of ethics, or it might "stand to reason" that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but its not a truth of formal logic in the way that "Either something is the case, or something is not the case, but not both", which is a truth of logic. So I can see how the term is used much more loosely.
often refers to formal systems of reasoning/deduction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
"The story assumes that anything which doesn't fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn't 'logical'.
For instance, assuming that 'logic' means 'using syllogisms'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called 'illogical', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don't use syllogisms all the time."
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning — drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one's way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term "logic" basically does refer to something like "informal logic" or "rigorous reasoning", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
When Spock says “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” — this isn't a truth of logic. It might be a truth of ethics, or it might "stand to reason" that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but its not a truth of formal logic in the way that "Either something is the case, or something is not the case, but not both", which is a truth of logic. So I can see how the term is used much more loosely.