The Failure Of Logic

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
It is a thought experiment that shows logic is no guide to living the "good" life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one here has argued that logic alone can guide one's actions. Logic is a process of analysis, but it is only as useful as the premises upon which it is based.

Given your premises as stated, the flaw in the burglar's reasoning and premises occurred prior to the burglary, where he began with a premise of "if I can steal it, I'm entitled to it," then failed to follow through the chain of possible consequences ("if I break in to steal it and someone is home, it might turn violent or even deadly").

In short, you've created a thought experiment which: (a) is based on a flawed statement of the subject you introduce as a counterexample; and, (b) punctuated the problem in a way designed to illustrate your pre-determined conclusion. An accurate statement of the law, or a different punctuation of the problem, can prove the opposite conclusion. So all you've done is prove that you can misstate and narrow the discourse in ways that make logical analysis irrelevant. That says nothing at all about the utility of logic, and a whole lot about your approach to rhetoric.

Cris

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
It is a thought experiment that shows logic is no guide to living the "good" life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one here has argued that logic alone can guide one's actions. Logic is a process of analysis, but it is only as useful as the premises upon which it is based.

Given your premises as stated, the flaw in the burglar's reasoning and premises occurred prior to the burglary, where he began with a premise of "if I can steal it, I'm entitled to it," then failed to follow through the chain of possible consequences ("if I break in to steal it and someone is home, it might turn violent or even deadly").

In short, you've created a thought experiment which: (a) is based on a flawed statement of the subject you introduce as a counterexample; and, (b) punctuated the problem in a way designed to illustrate your pre-determined conclusion. An accurate statement of the law, or a different punctuation of the problem, can prove the opposite conclusion. So all you've done is prove that you can misstate and narrow the discourse in ways that make logical analysis irrelevant. That says nothing at all about the utility of logic, and a whole lot about your approach to rhetoric.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

You have consistently missed the point. And do so once again. You are trapped by your own publically stated comments ie these posts. You are now repeating yourself. You have come across a problem. The problem is that two intelligent actors can disagree about something. I deny that the thought experiment was flaws. Though the creator of it has many flaws.

Why do you feel the need to comment about my age and status? Ad hominem attack?

[The Yugoslavian]

An ad hominem attack from CrisBrown?!? This has got to be a first!

Next thing you know, she'll start talking about the possibility of you raping her daughter, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

CrisBrown definitely likes to argue and I think does sometimes say things that seem to be valuable. I do wonder, however, if she spends too much time posting willy-nilly and not enough time trying to actually figure out what a poster actually means or is trying to communicate through the imperfect medium of message board text.

[Al Mirpuri]

Nice observation. These message boards are imperfect as a medium for intellectual argument.