The Failure Of Logic

[Pepsquad]

Maybe I'm digging too deeply here and I haven't read the other responses but if the burglar was operating with logic he would never have commited the crime to begin with.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm digging too deeply here and I haven't read the other responses but if the burglar was operating with logic he would never have commited the crime to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some individuals, who do not possess the aptitudes that society values crime can be a rational response to their plight.

[Al Mirpuri]

It would be better to beat you all into agreeing to my point of view.

We did not out argue the Nazis. We killed them.

You want rigor but all you have is rigor mortis.

You failed to see my nuanced position. I did not deny logic completely. All I stated was that its ambit and effectiveness were not what many think.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
No, and since he does not and cannot, it would not be logical to let that enter into the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

He cannot know, but he cannot rule out the possibility that he will somehow be accountable for his actions...you don't think it's logical to consider that risk?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The thought experiment I presented was to show that those who are in love with logic (and opposed to religion) should not be so smug because logic can lead to all sorts of terrible consequences.

Religious faith can lead to the same thing. Consider Mohammed Atta.

Evil is evil whether it is sectarian or secular.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
How could it be logical to give your life up to the authorities who would then extinguish it in the name of punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it be logical to eat a carrot?

I don't think you know what logical means.

Strictly speaking, actions aren't logical or illogical; arguments are. An argument is logical if its conclusion follows from its premises. An argument is illogical if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

Metaphorically, we might say that a certain action is "logical" if it is likely to achieve the actor's objectives. If I want to shoot you, it would be "logical" for me to point my gun at you, and "illogical" for me to point it at myself. If I want to shoot myself, the reverse would be true.

If I want to eat a banana, it would be "logical" for me to eat a banana and "illogical" for me to eat a carrot instead.

If I want to eat a carrot, it would be "logical" for me eat a carrot, and "illogical" for me to eat a banana instead.

So just as the logic of an argument depends on the relationship between its premises and its conclusion ("Britney Spears is Mormon; all Mormons are over seven feet tall; therefore Britney Spears is over seven feet tall" is a perfectly logical argument), the "logic" of a certain act depends on the relationship between the actor's assumed objectives and the act's likelihood of achieving them.

But logic doesn't tell us what the premises of an argument should be -- it only tells us whether a given conclusion follows from them.

Similarly, "logic" in the metaphorical sense in which you're using it doesn't tell us what the actor's objectives should be; it just tells us whether a given act is likely to achieve them.

So to answer your question, How could it be logical to give your life up to the authorities who would then extinguish it in the name of punishment?, the answer is that it would be "logical" to give up your life to the authorities if your overriding goal is to spare the mother and child instead of sparing yourself.

If the burglar has different objectives than that, then go ahead and get all indignant about his objectives -- but not about logic. (Or in this case, "logic.")

[Al_Capone_Junior]

All this ignores the many illogical steps the burglar had to take in order to get into this situation in the first place. So concluding that logic is a failure based on this situation is, well, illogical.

I also doubt praying would help here either.

al

[David Sklansky]

Your post should be required reading for everyone on these forums. In fact I want it posted on all forums. Someone please do it.

[toots]

I truly enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks again.

[chezlaw]

Fantastic post.

As well as the basic misunderstanding about logic, there seem to be a lot of people who think that because they can come up with a logical argument for something they then have a good reason for believing their conclusion as a free standing entity.

e.g some argument that religion is illogical, therefore religon is illogical.

All they have actually done is come up with some premises from which it follows that religion is illogical. People who disagree with them are often not being illogical but are starting from somewhere else.

There is a curious reluctance amongst people to expose their argument to scrutiny and have their more basic premises challanged. I sometimes wonder whether people are even aware they are doing this. Any thoughts?

chez