Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

I used to be surprised at comments about Actions being 'logically inconsistant', now I rather expect a majority of people to commit that linkage.

Good poker players are already exposed to the concept that there are no two identical situtions and that the correct, logical answer always starts out with "it depends". IOW, the consistancy exists in the accurate application of logic to two different (but very similar looking) situations, not in the comparison of the answers to just some of the variables involved.
"I have AA UTG, I should raise because..."
is not logically inconsistant with "I have AA UTG, I shouldn't raise because..." if there is even one eensy,teensie variable that is different between the two specific situations it may sway the answer.

So, what is logically inconsistant with having a SOP of being against shooting people, but having no qualms about ventilating a burglar about to crowbar your child?

Not all humans are of equal value.
A burglar taking a crowbar to my child ranks just above sewer rats. A child taking a crowbar to a burglar approaching them is a brave li'l darlin.

It's not logically inconsistant to have two different ratings on "whacking people with crowbars". Positions aren't logical entities. The method of arriving at them may be.

So, it makes no sense to think it's logically inconsistant to be "against killing" but "ok with some wars". Or, not a supporter of abortion but willing to concede some exceptions. Or, for the death penalty but against mercy killing.

IOW, we can consider people to be intellectually honest if they are consistant in fairly applying equal logical rigor to each situation based on the same variety of underlying principles that touch on the case in question. Looking for 'intellectual honesty' in the approach to different situations is much more meaningful ( and a better character assessment) than thinking there is a way of judging logical consistancy from merely looking at 'positions' on non-identical situations.

I intend this as stimulative, not definitive, have at it.. luckyme

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, was Stalin really that bad?

I'm not into the 'evil' concept, but I get your drift. [ QUOTE ]
Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ] Hold it. Wasn't da Vinci involved in keeping some really neat code from us? and didn't he start that writing the message backwards nonsense that forced me to listen to the Rolling Stones in slow mode and in reverse to be sure I wasn't missing anything.( I wasn't, in either direction).

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

If you say "killing is wrong," you're making a universal statement. Had you said "killing is wrong except under such-and-such circumstances" that would be another thing. But you don't make any distinctions. There's a difference between saying you're "against killing" and saying that you're "against killing in this context for these reasons." You aren't even saying "killing is wrong in general." You're just saying "killing is wrong."

So essentially you are making the same mistake as someone who says "if you have AA you should raise." The fact you have failed to specify any conditions or qualifications indicates a very real flaw in the statement. If you suggest folding AA at some later date, you are being inconsistent with your previous position.

If you believe some wars are justified, or that killing in self-defense is justified, then you aren't "against killing." You may be "against murder," "against killing under certain circumstances," or even "mostly against killing." But you aren't just plain "against killing."

The problem with making sweeping statements is that even if they aren't intended to be categorical, they're vague enough to allow you to change your position as it suits you. "Oh, I am against killing - but that's an exception. And so is that. And that." You can dodge any argument against you by arbitrarily changing the conditions under which killing becomes "okay." Under the circumstances it's fair for an opponent to ask you to define the specific conditions under which killing is and is not allowed. And if in a discussion on the morality of killing you claim that "killing is wrong" it's fair to interpret that position as it was expressed - as absolute.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

Cheeesh, My intent was to hide behind -
[ QUOTE ]
I intend this as stimulative, not definitive, have at it..

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So essentially you are making the same mistake as someone who says "if you have AA you should raise." The fact you have failed to specify any conditions or qualifications indicates a very real flaw in the statement. If you suggest folding AA at some later date, you are being inconsistent with your previous position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything in context. I commented - [ QUOTE ]
So, what is logically inconsistant with having a SOP of being against shooting people, but having no qualms about ventilating a burglar about to crowbar your child?

[/ QUOTE ] SOP means that if you are given a typical scenario you have confidence that some default reaction is likely appropriate, it totally leaves the door open for non-standard or unusual circumstances that would cause you to deviate from SOP.

It's not logically inconsistant to state "My SOP is to raise with AA" then at a later date to say, "Oh, well, sure if there's a maniac 2 doors down then I'll limp."
My personal slogan is "there are no final decisions". That doesn't mean when somebody asks if I like fried eggs I can't say, "yep." without going into all the offbeat scenarios where I would refuse them.

IOW, it's debatable where the flaw sits. Is it in the belief that all statements are absolutes when there are no caveats/disclaimers, or is it in the belief that no statements are absolutes unless specified as such.

Does, "I'm against killing" mean
a) I'm absolutely against killing in every conceiveble situation.
b) I'm against killing in the huge majority of situations but it's not inconceiveble that some exceptional situations exist.

I don't think either a/b is implied, because in most exchanges it's not relevant. If a specific discussion needs that clarified it's easy to do, either upfront or as needed.

Absolute positions are so rare that if I had to choose I'd say (b) is what people tentatively assume in any given statement. If simple statements were absolutes then why would people yell at me, "I'm ABSOLUTELY against licking." when they could simply say "i'm against licking" relying on me to know that 'absolute' goes with all phrases unless disavowed.

"I like sex" doesn't mean always and all kinds.
"I don't like braggards" is a default (unless they turn out to be the most generous, kind soul I've met).

If (a) is correct, then I've been misinterpreting virtually everything that I've heard and misinforming virtually everyone I've spoken to for decades.

My take is that neither a or b is correct, and the 'undefined' c is the norm. Poker is a great game because the "it depends" is taken for granted and you don't have to say it 300 times a day. Life seems to work similarly.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with making sweeping statements is that even if they aren't intended to be categorical, they're vague enough to allow you to change your position as it suits you.

[/ QUOTE ] But, if they're not intended as categorical then you haven't changed your position. You may have temporarily confused an absolutist, but the fact he goes around slapping words into my statements doesn't mean we can't sort it out this time and be more careful when dealing with him next time. ??
But, I'm willing to hear where I messed up, and I do appreciate the spash of cold water.. luckyme

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

Madnak, I wasn't trying to probe the nature of statements, interesting as that is. I was pointing to where to look for logical consistancy. It's not in the derived positions/opinion because they are just static endings. The only place we can check for logical inconsistancy is in the structure used to get to those statements.

examples such as being 'for the death penalty' and 'against euthanasia' and 'against most abortion' and 'for civilian bombing at times' cannot be known if they are logically inconsistant until we hear the logic for each derived position.

Positions arise from premise-premise-premise some shuffling of variables and out pops our position on a situation. So until we see the validity and consistancy of the logic being applied in each case there is no way to state when simply hearing the derived positions that they are logically inconsistant.

Yet, we read comments to that effect. "how can you be for X and against Y ..that's logically inconsistant!" How could we know that from just the position level of comparison. Don't we have to hear the logic?

hope that's clearer, didn't mean to bog you down in specifics by the examples, lucky me.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

I think a lot of this is belief-dependant. I have heard people say in this forum that if something is wrong, then it is wrong, and it doesn't matter if that wrong leads to a greater good. Now imagine a person who believed this made an absolutist statement such as "not saving a dying person is bad if it is reasonably possible for you to do so". Now, if this person saw Adolf Hitler lying on the ground dying, and there was medicine that would save him in their right pocket, and they did not give the medicine to him, this would be logically inconsistent.

However, people who think on a level closer to that of EV, and share the same doctrine that "not saving a dying person is bad if it is reasonably possible for you to do so", could just walk by without saving Hitler without being logically inconsistent. Not saving him would be "bad" or "EV-" just because not saving anyone is "bad", but the fact that if you don't act that Hitler will die changes things. If this person views Hitler's death as a "good" thing, then it is possible that the EV+ of Hitler's death could outweigh the EV- of saving a person's life and the system as a whole of not saving this person's life who is Hitler could be EV+ or "net good".

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

Okay, I agree. I imagine most people have trouble divorcing a given position from their assumptions about how one arrives at that position. Also I think "common sense" gets in the way a lot - many people seem reluctant to challenge what they consider to be common-sense notions. And sometimes it's rhetorical; calling someone inconsistent is often a good way to push their buttons.

Sometimes two positions really can be contradictory, regardless of the chain of reasoning used to arrive at those positions. I do think the nature of the statements is relevant, because at its core I consider this a problem of communication more than anything.

To a large degree, philosophy deals with "the absolutes," even if the only "absolute" is the absence of absolutes. I think many discussions here revolve around isolating the theoretical principles that underlie situational decisions. So while I may not be justified in saying you're inconsistent regarding your position on killing, I do think I'm generally justified in asking you why you value the life of a burglar differently from the life of your child.

In poker there are many variables that depend on the situation. If those variables are all considered to be unknown, it may be impossible to determine the correct course of action. That isn't because a theoretical approach is ineffective, just because we don't have all the information. If we take all of the data into account, I believe there is usually a correct play that can be derived from theoretical principles.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

hi, generally something being logical is determined by the submission of that something to a logical system, which must meet certain criteria. these 'somethings' are usually referred to as well-formed-formulae (or wff's). the wff's are the grist for the analytical machine, the logical system. when you talk about "actions" being "logically consistent" what do you mean? can you give me an example of how you would convert an action into a wwf? in simple logics wff's are sometimes just called 'propositions' or even 'sentences'. this is not to be picky. there is a lot of loose thinking that goes on here and i just like to see it tightened up a bit..........................b

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

I think luckyme's position is that most of the statements made here don't represent wffs, and therefore can't really be considered logically inconsistent.

My original interpretation of the OP's problem assumed a situation like this:

All killings are wrong. All lethal acts of self-defense are killings. In this clase claiming that a "self-defense killing" isn't wrong would be inconsistent with the previous statements (all self-defense killings must be wrong).

Unfortunately, the language used on a message board forum has to be a bit vague. Going into exact detail would take too long (and would be arguably impossible). And when the definition of a term changes with the wind, it's really hard to pin it down into any sort of formal context.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, the language used on a message board forum has to be a bit vague. Going into exact detail would take too long (and would be arguably impossible). And when the definition of a term changes with the wind, it's really hard to pin it down into any sort of formal context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I've noticed some posters tend to make there first response along the lines of "define X" or, "please elaborate". After being burned enough times by assuming that a post to a internet forum actually rigorously means what it seems to, I 'spose. Even in situations that seem obvious, such as the "All killing is wrong. Death penalty is good." there are at least two possibilities. a) the person is logically challenged.
b) they misphrased a statement.
c) I misread some clue or an earlier post, etc.

note to self - if the post seems way off, make your first response a clarification request, or allow for the possibility of needing one. luckyme.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

I agree with you but just for some different flavour:

An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests.

An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.

This is not about boats.

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not about boats.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, thanks a lot. I just Know that allowing boats would have simplified it for me.
[ QUOTE ]
(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests.

(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.
Having forewarned you how narrow-minded I am, here's my first reaction to your statements -
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.

With (B), I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

A person makes a decision that is obviously wrong but well thought out .. it only blows up when you say, "But ,Hortense, today is only tuesday." His logic built on the false premise that today was wednesday may have been so brilliant it made my navel tingle, and I'm not so eager to call his thinking 'illogical' in the same manner as I would too eagerly do for someone who knew it was only tuesday, had all the other info that Hortense did, and screwed the thinking process up horrendously. Circular reasoning, post hoc, whatever.
Then again, perhaps I'm process-biased.

Am I anywhere near the field you are standing in?

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

I'm not sure there is necessarily an inconsistency between 'I'm against killing' and 'it being ok to kill someone in a certain situation'. Or any other similar example you can come up with. The fact that it could be ok to kill, say in self-defence, doesn't make the initial statement 'I'm against killing' a contingent statement. It's about an application problem, or to put it in more common parlance, about choosing the lesser of two evils. You can only establish any statement as truly inconsistent by example of it's application if, in that example, every option is available - ie the person making the choice is omnipotent. I'm against plenty of things I find myself doing, such as hanging out with my family.

The +/-EV thing with Hitler is pretty cool, made me smile [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But all that's really doing is digging up the utilitarian/consequentialist school of ethics vs value ethics. If an individual has genuinely constructed an ethical framework based on value/act, then no amount of +/-EV is going to sway an action.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, talking about actions being logical or not presupposes there is act of will going on.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) [(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests] is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree premise (1) is false but I see it differently. I can't see any justification for saying that all your actions must be in your interests; where would this 'mustness' come from?

and as usual with me, I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical. If all my reasoning tells me that an action is against my interests, but then I do it anyway, then that is what I mean by an illgical action.

I hate examples but as its a poker forum; Mr P is trying to play poker well as possible, he knows he is beat on the end but cant stop himself calling.

Logically: Mr P's believes his interests imply ~calling
illogically: Mr P call.

[ QUOTE ]
With (B) [(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.], I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll try to be clearer because its nothing to do with false premises.

Suppose Mr P's interests, I, imply wanting W to be the case and wanting W to be the case implies not doing action A. Then
1)I -> W
2) W -> ~A
therefore
3) I -> ~A

If Mr P believes 1) and 2) but hasn't realised that 3) is a logical consequence, so he doesn't realise that A doesn't serve his interests, then doing A is illogical (that is someone who is 100% logical would realise all the logical consequences of what they believe and act accordingly).

Poker analogy is not letting your opponent raise when it will make you want to throw up. Mr P wants to see a showdown but unthinkingly bets on the end, only realising after his opponent raised why he shouldn't have bet.

Mr P's believes his interest -> not letting his opponent raise
Mr P believes not letting his opponent raise -> not betting
therefore
A logical consequence of Mr P's beliefs is that he believes betting is against his interests.

Betting is illogical even if MR P never thinks about it enough to realise that betting is against his interests.

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not all humans are of equal value.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The crazy thoughts swimming in the burgler's head are different than the crazy thoughts swimming in a 'rational' person's head which creates the difference in action. Some think some way, some think another way and the difference in opinion creates tension because the two groups are scared and ignorant of eachother and themselves. Both groups are still crazy though. When you know that you're crazy though, you can really beat the crap out of the burglar, but only cause you know that you're crazy. If you don't know that you're crazy, it will be anger that is kicking his face in. But if someone is crazy and doesn't know they are crazy, then they are just ignorant.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)I -> W 2) W -> ~A therefore 3) I -> ~A

when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.

So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not. It's no accident that poker is dominated by males, a big chunk of it isn't about the money.

( this is off your point, but often it’s that his reasoning is flawed, he’s not able to juggle enough variables quickly enough to make good decisions, those are illogical actions because the steps themselves are screwed up. It’s a lesser crime to miss some facts, and have the logical steps correct for the shrunken fact set you are working with. Outcome is the same so we usually can’t tell from the outside which one it is just by looking at the final decision.)

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[ QUOTE ]
So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by actual interests, I don't think there is any such thing. All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I'd add (c) or he is mistaken about what his interests are, which questions this - [ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either. In many cases, it's much easier to see what somebody wants from the outside than it is for them from the inside. The, "If you think you play poker (only) for the money, you're only fooling yourself" view of things.

Still, on a philosophy forum we can only deal with the logic as it is overtly presented, and leave the 'a persons philosophy grows out of their psychology' type questions to the psychology forum, I 'spose. ( although it does explain a lot of what we read here).
luckyme

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either .

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it matters. In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.

If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure much of the time you're right and we make the decision first and then attempt to justify it - I know I do that a fair bit. Is this type of behavior illogical? Seems kinda necessary for learning - try it on for size and if it fits then work out why?

Its quite a good method for testing beliefs/actions (although it can be hard work for all involved). I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?). I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

The problem is its often completely bogus. Some people will maintain their position even if the argument is clearly faulty because they have no interest at all in whether their belief is logical (that may be fair enough but if honest they wouldn't pretend it was as a result of logic). The clearest example of this is the ID argument for god - most people who spout ID do not believe in god because of ID and would not have a weaker belief in god if they understood that the ID argument is faulty.

Don't take it to physcology, philosophers are better at sorting this mess out [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

[/ QUOTE ] The pain is correlated to the amount of shifting it causes in any broad-ranging assumptions. I have difficulty thinking in terms of 'positions' ( an normally concieved), even though I realize I must translate my thinking into those terms to have any hope of communicating with 73% of the population. I detest examples because it's impossible for them to convey all the implications of the general principles underlying them. A 'position' is just a single point where the forces exerted from general principles and current variables intersect. [ QUOTE ]
I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?)

[/ QUOTE ] At least related, I'd say. Usually I don't care where stating the position leads and my 'defense' is more of the integrity of the 'position' so the examination has value, rather than actually defending it as 'true'. Typically, when the examination is over I'll notice new more interesting intersections and move on.
I have very few premises that I treat as true ( regardless if they are or not) that I've settled on over time. a) there is an external reality. b) I have free will. and I've slowly moved into accepting c) there is a correlation between my perceptions and external reality, strongly supported by the evidence of evolution.
I spent so much time getting comfortable with those that I don't bother with most discussions about them ( the other person likely doesn't have their gold watch in those areas, let them do their own work).
Does any of the above seem familar to you?

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love Pauli's "It's not even wrong."

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have very few premises that I treat as true ( regardless if they are or not) that I've settled on over time. a) there is an external reality. b) I have free will. and I've slowly moved into accepting c) there is a correlation between my perceptions and external reality, strongly supported by the evidence of evolution.
I spent so much time getting comfortable with those that I don't bother with most discussions about them ( the other person likely doesn't have their gold watch in those areas, let them do their own work).
Does any of the above seem familar to you?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very familiar, I wonder how few of us there are who take this type of approach. Mine are a bit different and I don't treat them as true but test any other view against them. Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.

I call 'mine' humble skeptical realism. That is that:

1) something that seems like me currently exists
2) a real world exists that I can interact with
3) I am a non-special part of this real world

So far, everything that I can understand about the world seems at least as understandable under this view than under any other.

chez

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very familiar, I wonder how few of us there are who take this type of approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there's a chunk of related views out there but many of them would be uncomfortable with my "treat as true" or your "test other views against them". Most people ( outside the very self-selecting grouop on SMP) need a stronger grip on something than what either of us start from.
[ QUOTE ]
Mine are a bit different and I don't treat them as true but test any other view against them. Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.
I call 'mine' humble skeptical realism. That is that:
1) something that seems like me currently exists
2) a real world exists that I can interact with
3) I am a non-special part of this real world

So far, everything that I can understand about the world seems at least as understandable under this view than under any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darn.. now I want a name for mine.
Flexible Occamism with a Twist of Reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

An expansion on this process and what you mean my 'same' would be interesting and helpful,
thanks, luckyme

Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU! I'm glad someone can just give a strait answer to the damn question. Enough with this wishy-washy debateble nonsense.

Honestly though I was crying laughing at that, especial to peoples responses like "where did you come up with those numbers?" could you have anymore not-gotten it? Awsome.