Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2005, 12:51 PM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-03-2005, 01:36 PM
r3vbr r3vbr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 75
Default 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).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-03-2005, 01:50 PM
PrayingMantis PrayingMantis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 11,600 km from Vegas
Posts: 489
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-03-2005, 01:52 PM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default 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).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-03-2005, 03:54 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-03-2005, 04:54 PM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-03-2005, 05:35 PM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-03-2005, 10:07 PM
fuego527 fuego527 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Default 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".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2005, 04:25 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2005, 03:38 PM
bearly bearly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 24
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.