The Failure Of Logic

[golFUR]

To paraphrase Lewis Black:

Why aren't you nuts required to wear aluminum hats so the rest of us can see you coming?

Guh. I'm sorry. Not for you, you had it coming. I'm sorry for me, sorry I got so upset I felt I had to resort to an 'insult'.

Apply logic and you'll get a logical outcome. Logic is but one of many frames you can view the world through. It is an internally consistent system, like occultism or christianity or any other coping mechanism we hairless apes rely on. It is only internally consistent though. No matter how logical a kid is, Dad is still right. Try logic on the Missus and you may end up in hot water as well. Spend all day "walking with God" and I'm not going to be surprised if you see miracles wherever you go. Just don't expect me to see them as well. We don't share frames.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a human invention. It was not discovered. Math is invented, not discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No Man = No Logic ?
2) No Man = No Math ?

Look outside and observe the trees, sky, planets and stars. Do you think the connections between the planets or the patterns of the stars and likewise the growth of the plants display the inventions of Man?

Do you really believe that Newton produced the math of the planets without the mathematics being intrinsic to the planetary movements?

Do you really believe that the number "one" was an invention of Man without the number being intrinsic to the unitary being?

regards,
carlo

[arabie]

no one said logic is the right answer. Logic only manifests good consequenes when the premises are true and not merely assumed. Hilter assumed his premises and, therefore, his argument has many skeptical refutations.

[winker]

I'm sorta a newbie on this forum and I read most all of the posts pertaining to this one murder is the same as a dozen so kill the rest.

I'd like to weigh in on something I haven't seen touched upon very much. Maybe some of you lawyers out there would disagree with me on this but ALMOST EVERY CRIME HAS DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND CANNOT BE TREATED THE SAME EVERYTIME. Think about it. On any trial they usually spend a week to a couple months just talking about the nature/circumstances/etc of the crime. Why can't that same careful consideration go into the punishment.

I'm not sure if the guy would have gotten the dealth penalty for justing offing the homeowner, but it is an example and we'll ASSUME he would have. There are many horrible ways to die, and even more horrible ways to murder. Yet each state selects just one, usually a very 'humane' form of exection. Assigning blanket punishments to crimes and trying to make their nature fit within some boundaries is flawed in my opinion. Almost all people fear death, and most people only fear it because they know they could die in some sort of awful way. Any many fear it simply because they don't know how or when it will come. Criminals who commit murder know the stakes in advance, why should they have that luxury? I've heard people say that capital punishment really isn't a big deterrant. I'd say it depends on the punishment.

I'm not advocating torture, unless it is truly due. So I'd say that a jury and a judge should get to decide the penalty for this man who kills the homeowner or an entire family. If he knew that would be the case he might be way more likely to simply stop the carnage, tie up the family, and call neighbor of theirs later who can call the police.

thoughts?? If he kills just one then maybe he gets 20-life or a bullet in the head. If he kills them all, then there should be a more painful, more public, more degarding death... to fit the more serious nature of his crime. Perhaps he could be burned, slowly stabbed, drowned, or whatever. Punishment should fit the crime... that is the best logic, IMO.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a human invention. It was not discovered. Math is invented, not discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No Man = No Logic ?
2) No Man = No Math ?

Look outside and observe the trees, sky, planets and stars. Do you think the connections between the planets or the patterns of the stars and likewise the growth of the plants display the inventions of Man?

Do you really believe that Newton produced the math of the planets without the mathematics being intrinsic to the planetary movements?

Do you really believe that the number "one" was an invention of Man without the number being intrinsic to the unitary being?

regards,
carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to all three questions.

Do all of these things exist for a snake, or a fish, or
the dung beetle?

No, because they have a different
interpretation of the random energy that is vibrating all
around them.

[umdpoker]

well, you could always do a rough estimate of your chances of getting the death penalty for the first murder. say its 50%. then estimate the odds of not getting caught, even with 2 witnesses. lets say thats 10%. so the life equity of choice 1 is 45%.

then, estimate the chances of getting caught after killing the wife and child. lets say thats 10%. as for chances of not getting the chair after a triple homicide, i would say you are drawing dead. so, your life equity for choice 2 is 90%.

obviously, all of these assumed numbers are horribly wrong. i think they are reasonable enough, however, to show that killing 2 more would be optimal for the burglar's survival. however, if he thinks in a world view, then saving 2 more lives, but giving his own would be the best. actually, because of his odds of living are less than 100%, it would make sense to give himself for just 1 other person if this were the case. my eyes are burning, so i am going to sleep. sorry if i rambled incoherently.

[CrisBrown]

Hi winker,

If you'd read the remainder of the thread, you'd have found that this experiment is fallacious for exactly that reason. In any capital case, there is a "guilt phase" in which the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Note that the jury does not decide the defendant is "innocent," because it doesn't have to. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. If the state can't meet that burden, then the presumption of innocence remains intact.

If the jury finds the defendant guilty, the proceedings then move to the "penalty phase," where both the state and defendant present evidence relating to aggravating and mitigating circumstances as defined by that state's law. In this situation, it is very unlikely that a jury would impose death for the murder of the husband, if the burglar then fled the house, because that death was a spur of the moment occurrence relating to the fact that the homeowner introduced a weapon into the situation. It's still felony murder -- the defendant can't claim self-defense, because he had no right to be there to begin with -- but on these facts it would not meet the prevailing standards for death.

Killing the wife and children in cold blood in order to escape detection, however, probably would meet those legal standards, and might well engender a death penalty.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi umdpoker,

I would be astonished beyond words if any would-be murderer in history has ever engaged in this kind of reasoning. It may be comparatively more likely in economic crimes, where you can balance the chance of prosecution and conviction, and the penalty, against the likely profit. But it's not even remotely applicable in violent crimes.

This is, btw, one of the best arguments against the death penalty. Despite the poorly-reasoned arguments of a handful of researchers who claim to have interviewed prison inmates who say they didn't kill someone out of fear of the death penalty, the overwhelming evidence is that would-be violent criminals simply don't do this kind of reasoning. This is "the myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor" and there is more than ample evidence that it is, indeed, a myth.

Cris

[Al Mirpuri]

In philosophical use, the word "absurdity" means contradiction not "ridiculous" as you seem to be using it.

You have not shown that there are any faulty premises nor is it fatal to my argument even if there were. It is a thought experiment that shows logic is no guide to living the "good" life. Assume the flawlessness of the premises, if you must.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi winker,

If you'd read the remainder of the thread, you'd have found that this experiment is fallacious for exactly that reason. In any capital case, there is a "guilt phase" in which the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Note that the jury does not decide the defendant is "innocent," because it doesn't have to. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. If the state can't meet that burden, then the presumption of innocence remains intact.

If the jury finds the defendant guilty, the proceedings then move to the "penalty phase," where both the state and defendant present evidence relating to aggravating and mitigating circumstances as defined by that state's law. In this situation, it is very unlikely that a jury would impose death for the murder of the husband, if the burglar then fled the house, because that death was a spur of the moment occurrence relating to the fact that the homeowner introduced a weapon into the situation. It's still felony murder -- the defendant can't claim self-defense, because he had no right to be there to begin with -- but on these facts it would not meet the prevailing standards for death.

Killing the wife and children in cold blood in order to escape detection, however, probably would meet those legal standards, and might well engender a death penalty.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, You have missed the point. You are arguing about a peripheral matter.