Where do you stand on logic?

I believe in logical fallacies over my own opinion. (Yes/No)
I believe in critical thinking. (Yes/No)
I believe in the scientific method. (Yes/No)
I believe that we should not make decisions based on our emotions. (Yes/No)
I consistently re-assess my beliefs to confirm my perspective. (Yes/No)
I don’t assume that I’m always right. (Yes/No)

On any question given feel free to expand on your reasoning as to why you agree or disagree. Is there a question that should have been brought up?

Please let me know.

I don’t understand this one.


Yes, but it’s only as good as the person using it.

No. Emotions should always play a part in decision making.

Anyone doing this has too much free time.

I usually think I’m right and I usually am.

1 Like

I believe in logical fallacies over my own opinion. (Yes/No)

I don’t understand this one

I believe in critical thinking. (Yes/No)


I believe in the scientific method. (Yes/No)


I believe that we should not make decisions based on our emotions. (Yes/No)

Yes and no. Depends of what one means by emotion or which ones emotions. Rather yes in fact.

I consistently re-assess my beliefs to confirm my perspective. (Yes/No)

Constantly no, sometimes when i get new input, yes.

I don’t assume that I’m always right. (Yes/No)


Thanks, guys for being open. It shows great character of you both being open with questions of who you are rather than being confronted with questions you care not to answer because of what you are.

Dang that’s cute.
Perhaps we should start a thread Mitch’s Pity Party.

I saw your questions as contrived - besides I myself don’t put much value in self evaluation for show and tell.

If you are really into self evaluation, it needs to be done in private, other wise the danger of playing to the audience, rather than honest self-reflection, gets too great.

1 Like

Well I can’t say I blame you, since I read each post as they come. My statement on the “pity party” was in regards as to why I’m being given some random leeway for my perceived behavior on this forum. Admittedly, I was quite flattered to be given such an honor as to being able to post without consequences of my actions.

CC we go back a long ways of me pissing you off and us ridiculing each other in ways that would make a 20 year old millennial cry. Is there any reason in your mind as to why I have not yet been banned from this forum due to my actions? I’ve never posted anything on this forum that was wrong other than expressing my opinion or challenging the opinions of others, but if not being nice is wrong, then everyone here is guilty, but in a nice way.

If that criminal slanderer and misinformer Mike Yohe hasn’t been banned, why should you?

Nothing wrong with a good healthy verbal brawl, just don’t start throwing chairs. :wink:
You know, keep as honest as possible.

I would add the question based on this definition;

Within formal logic, mathematical logic studies the mathematical characteristics of logical systems, while philosophical logic applies them to philosophical problems such as the nature of meaning, knowledge, and existence. Systems of formal logic are also applied in other fields including linguistics, cognitive science, and computer science.
Logic - Wikipedia

Is the Universe a Logical system? (Yes/No)

Logic” originally came from the meaning, “to look (up)”, and originally assumed the inclusion of what is now called, ‘science’. But this depended upon apiriori beliefs. That is, statements of fact assumed to be universally true by its meaning in all conditions. An example of such is, “This sentense is a sentence.”

When many argued that the input statements of an argument cannot all bbe treated as ‘apriori’, which means a fact that needs no prior argument, a separation between the deductive aspects of argument from the inductive ones based upon one’s senses was sought.

Thus, “science” was added to the jargon of intellectual analysis that meant to specify most particularly the process of using one’s senses to infer to initiating statements of an argument. The root of the term literally means, “to see” or “to sense” with an old spelling. Then the ‘formal’ logic referred to the process of VALIDATING input statements used to draw conclusions. It is best to think of logic as the symbolic means of determining functioning conclusions with as much certainty as the input premises are when assumed ‘true’.

So both play a role. Think of logic as a machine that has one or more inputs and one specific output. (More complex machines can have many outputs based upon these. They call mechanisms that give one specific conclusion, “functions”, whereas you CAN have in general more than one conclusion. This is just conventional and one can technically define a system of reasoning initially based upon multiple outputs/conclusions. Some set theories do this. These mechanisms of argument are then referred to as ‘relations’, to which a ‘function’ is kind of relation(ship).

I think that many falsely take the stance that science now includes logic, but I still prefer treating science as a subset of logic that deals specifically with determining the initial inputs. Because sensed reality is relatively subjective, science acts as the collective subjective senses (often referred to as ‘objective’ without care to differentiate the meaning distinct from a gods-eye-view of reality.) As such, ‘science’ is a convention of people’s shared subjective declarations about what they sense along with any inclusive interpretations upon them. I think it has to remain separate from the act of validating conclusions but should remain under a common heading. However, I’m not sure if it should be considered ‘science’ and that where science uses logic, such as in theorizing, it should be treated as a hybrid. Science can be thought of as the “logic of inferring conclusions based upon the senses inductively” whereas formal logic is sometimes interpreted as “the science of deductive inference.” As long as one understands that they both are needed this should not matter. But those who tend to favor the former tend to think in terms of stereotypical forms of thinking given they prioritize sensation while trivializing logic as unreal but just a tool (as math is).

I understand your reference to fallacies. But note that even those are mostly inductive and lack universal inclusion of all cases beyond the deductive fallacies. They can be political and ignorant of how interpretation is often perceived through culture of the times. [‘paradigm’]
Fallacies are just the set of common errors (declared) and most have exceptions. Nevertheless, it is a good introduction to arguing and eventually necessary for understanding as one advances in any intellectual analysis.

Note that I happen to prefer interpreting reality as made up of mechanisms to which logic is just a symbolic or ‘abstract’ type of machine. To me, the ideal goal we need to seek intellectually is to bring the model that the abstract logic refers to as close as possible to the reality that science seeks to determine. Science can then be thought of as trying to guess, by patterns of our collective senses, what the mechanisms of Nature are or might be, and logic as its validator. That is, upon guessing what the possible function of some observed phenomena is scientifically, we then test this mechanism for the logic we assumed. If it predicts successfully any novel inputs we place into it, then this ‘validates’ the system or particular logical nature of the guessed mechanism.

Science then works backwards from some given indeterminate ‘object’, where logic works forwards in specifically determining conclusions.

1 Like

Hey again. One thing I don’t like about the new software is that it does not show that a user is silenced. Mitch70 was not happy here and pretty asked to be cut off.

1 Like

That’s too bad. He can’t respond to my own post on his OP, then?

I am getting flickering issues a bit but am guessing that given manynew forum software attempts to prioritize for cell phones and other devices without respecting those of us who like a big screen. Some problems possibly relate to those kind of issues.

I still have to look up preferences to determine if it emails messages and other things, like putting my mug on as an avatar. I look forward to discussions with you and others here. It seems relatively quiet to the way it was before. But this is happening on most forums now. People prefer the simple text tweeting these days and even get annoyed at emails too. The technologies are moving so fast and far beyond people’s ability to handle them maturely.

…also, I think we are socially being stunted in our intellectual growth for a whole new generation. Covid only amplified this degradation and it affects forums first and foremost. Who wants to read and write long posts on a 4 in screen using only their thumbs to type?

I wish it would show that too. It leaves people wondering and thinking, “Why don’t he write”.

I feel we should not take any decision after being more emotional. Being logical and taking conscious decisions is required to make the right one.
When we are too emotional, our mind is not in the capacity to think and decide.


Welcome emilyn,

Nice initial post. Looking forward to more.

1 Like

This definition from Nick Hayes’ beautiful The Book of Trespass came to postmodern mind Logic… a system, or a set of principles, aligned in such a way that they can perform a specific task.

Logic is a validating mechanism. The saying, ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ applies. Science is a process used to determine what and how parts of observed Nature functions. But many inappropriately interpret logic in science to be authoritative rather than participatory among equals, in direct contrast or contradiction to the original intents that promoted this.

As an atheist, I interpret reality as requiring reasons for its functioning that do not come from a predetetermined authority figure. In fact, given it should derive from nothing whatsoever, it also stands to reason that there still has to be a foundational logic to it that precedes science. That is, while we have to use scientific methods to try to determine what Nature’s logic is, Nature itself doesn’t require a predefined mind to require science itself. In this respect there still has to be some apriori facts of Nature based upon no initial inputs that manifest all of reality.

Our observations of reality are not what causes it. So we need to tackle means to determine origins by seeking to reason in two distinct classes of reasoning: Logic that specifically seeks to argue from apriori inputs AND Science that specifically seeks to argue aposteriori (empirically). Both are necessary but many tend to falsely assume that these are exclusive. The tendency that I notice of many is to presume that the scientific method is strictly of one formula for all investigations of Nature.

This is where I am apparently running into problems here and in some other forums that demand an etiquette of absolute respect for authority and the quirks of the Humpty Dumpty whose sensitivity is more about whether you learned to place the fork on the left hand side of the plate and the knife on the right hand side when setting up a table for guests. That one should dare speak of differences of methodology is relatively ‘blasphemous’ by those who believe in censure and censorship of those attempting to step through the gates of their castle.

This behavior if not checked will be the determining factor of our political upheavals on a world stage where one side will be at a loss for why the other side is acting so arrogant and, in an opposite way, the other will perceive the debate to be about the other side’s supposed ignorance. Both sides will lose because the extremes are the ones dictating the terms. When one extreme begs respect for authority and builds strong castles with strict rules regarding who can or cannot be allowed in, the other extreme rejects any means of futhering kind intellectual debate by the use of gorilla war tactics because they have no other recourse but to use what little means of force they have to fight the giants. If those outside the wall are just percieved as moronic apes, then why should the ones presuming them as such expect anything but the shit that apes tend to throw?

Those like the Donald Trump’s extremes are tossing shit knowing they are intentionally not being rational because the extremes on the other side are arrogantly demanding they alone should set the rules of conduct for negotiating and are being hypocritical because they want the best of both worlds. Although I personally struggle hard to redress this, I happen to be born outside the castle walls and so get treated by those I support the most with derision as though I’m the enemy. I hate both extermes and would love to blow the whole fucking wall down but can’t do it alone. The extremes on the side I was accidentally born on expects me to join in on their captain (who is hypocritically one who builds walls for a living) while the other is not approving of my request for them to come off their high horses when trying to appeal to the crowds. Those running the extremes come from the same background while that vast majority of all who exist in various degrees in between are being forced by both sides to take up an oath of sworn loyalty to their extremes or else you get treated as though you are no different than their enemy.

The above is my concern that relates to how the extremes are running the potential effectiveness of logic’s successes. It is the origin of the story of the lone child who dared to speak up to say that the Emperor is naked. (S)he is shunned by the authorities who hanged him/her for such outspoken traitorous behavior by the Kings’ horsemen and abanded by the crowd who fears similar retribution and thinks it best you stick to pretend there are those who CAN live with fashionable but somewhat invisible cloaks. Does anybody not get this?

Edit 1: “Emporer” to “Emperor”; “then” to their"

Watch the language. If you want to get banned, that’s a good way to get it.

The highlight color indicates an admin message

No one here knows where you were born or cares.

Just heard about this today, basically says what you are saying, about an elite class. Doesn’t mean it’s true, but I get where you are coming from. Also, this has nothing to do with your theory about “El”.

1 Like