Logically inconsistant, my ***

[imported_luckyme]

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

[imported_luckyme]

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.

[fuego527]

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".

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.

[bearly]

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

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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

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

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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?

[chezlaw]

[ 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