July 29, 2006

Fundamental truths - Deductive Logic

The reason why I don't use inductive logic (at least in this thread) is because inductive logic relies upon examples and historical precedents, that can be and often are argued for years on end without progress.

The solution I presented is to use deductive logic, rather than to rely on your inductive logic and get into useless arguments.

Of course you don't accept the fundamental truths of the situation. If you did, your experimental data would reflect the methodology of your judgement.

The best I can do in any debate is to offer what I have for my position, contrast it with my opponent's position, you, and have the reader decide for himself. Not everyone will be convinced by me, and not everyone will be convinced by you. But it all depends upon whether they come about their judgements and beliefs through deductive logic, which is the arguing of fundamental truths, or through experimental results, which is a scientific method of analyzing humans and politics through the news and events independent of the fundamentals.

The best way I can explain fundamental truths to you or Bookworm, is to mention Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Now, that principle is a fundamental truth. It is true because it applies to everything. A fundamental truth is FALSE if it does not apply to everything. So if I say a fundamental truth of Bookworm is that she is bloodthirsty (as many anti-neocons accused neo neocon of) then the proof in the pudding is that Bookworm often disagrees with me when I take a position that is real bloodthirsty.

Inductive logic is to go around looking at this situation, event, person, and action and trying to see how it acts and what not. Then when you have the data, you derive your conclusions from that. Deductive logic starts with the conclusion first, then with the data. Science never starts with the conclusion first and then tries to get the data, bad science results. However, to derive truth does not require science, there are other methods and techniques.

Bookworm mentioned in a later post that she has fundamental beliefs, about the truth, that informs her judgement. Bookworm has included human behavior and beliefs with deductive and inductive logic, one step further than I have taken in this thread.

A simple test of Bookworm's inductive logic skills would be to see whether she can gather enough information and make a hypothesis that is backed up by the data she has collected. For example, with the drug test on tour de France, she has the data, and she has two mutually exclusive hypotheses. Instead of choosing one and trying to disprove it, she can, by using inductive logic, collect data and information in order to see which hypothesis is better supported by the evidence and the reasoning. Logically, only one option is true in a mutually exclusive situation. So one option is most of the time better supported by the data, Bookworm just has to find out which is which by digging up information she currently may not have.

Now an example of testing deductive logic, works the other way around. For example, I would say "If Bush is a liar, then what else would be true based upon that a priori?" From then on, I would construct a logical series of events and scenarios that MUST BE TRUE if the a priori belief, Bush is a liar, is true. Using this logic gate operation and code, I can create sub-logic routines that can be tested for truth or falseness. A couple of the subroutines says, then, if Bush is a liar, then he would have a propaganda apparatus. If Bush is a liar, he would have better popular support, ala Roosevelt and the other liars in the past who were very good at manipulating public opinion with deception. If Bush is a liar, then he would have excellent rhetorical abilities and his plans would contain extremely complex and deceptive details.

After I analyzed the subroutines, I came up with negatives on all of them. Deductive logic cannot and should not be used by idiots. Sherlock Homes, detectives, these people operate the way they do because of a reason, and also because they have ability. A guy who lacks the knowledge and the mental fortitude to make calculations, is unable to build and test logic gates. Neither can he debug them. Sure, maybe he could do it on paper, but in reality? With human beings as the logic gates? *shakes head*

The reason why deductive logic is so useful to human affairs, is because of how we think and how we believe. Everyone, you included bookworm, has something they believe in. So how can you make a scientific analysis of the thesis, if you already believe in one over the other? How is objectivity possible? It is not. People with prejudices, previous bad judgements, and so forth, cannot correct them if they cannot see why they were wrong. And without an inbuilt ability at introspective deductive logic, they are unable to see where they went wrong. If this, then that, if that then this, if this then not that, if not that, then not this. What kind of mental training, education, natural intellect, and good judgement is required for someone, like you bookworm, to analyze your own personal preconceptions and prejudices and verify whether they are correct or incorrect? Every human believes something. If we were all computers, then inductive logic would be all we would need in order to determine the truth or falseness of A or B. But we are not computers, we cannot analyse something without inbuilt bias. Therefore by taking into account our internal biases, we can build and debug logic gates based upon what should be true. If this, then that should be true. If not this, then that should not be true.

In Conclusion, I do not believe Clint understands deductive logic as a practical application while I think Bookworm does. It is a requirement for a person to change his mind. I cannot change Clint's mind. I can only show by contrast how his thinking compares to mine. The reason why I won't argue with you clint about the history of the Jews or tell you what I believe the Jews did or did not do to justify their state's existence, is because I am far more interested in your fundamental logic and your a priori assumptions. With that information, I can build a logic gate. With that information, I need not go looking for historical contexts trying to "disprove" your position.

It's a time saver. If Logic Gate 5 out of 5 X 10 to the 90 power logic gates is not true, then you discard the other 5 X10 to the 90th power logic conclusions. When debating, people draw up a list of 'evidence' and 'stuff' that can go down to the floor. Or at least take a supercomputer days to run through. It'll never end, one side can always bring something else to the picture and say "here, this counters your A." Which is returned by "this counters your counter to A" and on it goes until infinity.

Bookworm knows what I'm talking about because she's a lawyer, one of their purposes being to make a legal list and make sure it contains everything advantageous to proposition A. Reasonable doubt, is there for a reason. Rest your case sometime. But there is always some new evidence that can be found sooner or later.

I rest my case on the basis that Clint doesn't accept the fundamental nature of a democracy as being in favor of peace and the fundamental nature of terroists as requiring force to sustain their justification for existence. That is all that I need to know, and all that you need to know as well, fellow reader.


Anonymous Clint said...

"I rest my case on the basis that Clint doesn't accept the fundamental nature of a democracy as being in favor of peace and the fundamental nature of terroists as requiring force to sustain their justification for existence."

Your argument makes zero sense.

Here's why.

Democracy is a form of government, yes? Terrorists are not a type of government - they are people. In fact, there could be terrorists inside a democracy. For instance, Hamas is democratically elected. Therefore, since they are a democracy, they are in favor of peace, according to you. I bet you wouldn't agree with that. That's where your logic falls apart.

31 July, 2006 03:47  
Blogger Ymarsakar said...

There were a couple of logical axioms supporting the proposition that democracies favor peace.

Democracies favor peace because democracies are governed by the people, or governed by the representatives of the people. Most current ones are the latter, rather than the former because of pop size.

Now, because democracies are governed by the people, why do democraces, i.e. the people, favor peace? Don't I always say that people have consistent behavior patterns and will react in similar fashion to similar stimuli? I did, and it still applies here.

Palestinians are from the same basic human psychological matrix as Israelis. Meaning, the same reason why an Israeli would want peace, also could and sometimes are the reason that Palestinians want peace.

So in light of this basic a priori that democracies are as good as the people and act like the people they represent, we now link this logic to the proposition that democracies favor peace.

The explanation. Democracies favor peace when their citizens favor peace. Citizens favor peace when they have suffered too much in return for too little gain.

Remember, the proposition was not that democracies never went to war, the proposition is that democracies naturally favor peace. The reason is because in a free society, more can be gained through free trade, open commerce, living under a rule of law, than under war.

So when you say that Palestinians or Hamas does not favor peace, you are either saying that they are not a democracatically elected body or you are saying that Hamas doesn't like peace because they gain more from war than peace, or you are saying that Hamas does not have a free society.

On a factual basis, Hamas was democratically elected, it is true that Hamas doesn't like peace because they gain more from war than peace, and it is also true that Hamas does not have a free society living under the rule of law and prosperity.

So, clint, you would have me believe that you only need one out of 3 of my logic a prioris to prove an inconsistency in my logic parsing?

After all. Free society, democratically elected, a desire for peace more than war. These the 3 a prioris supporting why Democracies favor peace over war. You say that Hamas is a democracy, just because they pass 1 out of 3 of the conditions.

Why is my logic inconsistent when your logic uses different a prioris than mine? Logic is not inconsistent when the a prioris are different, you know. If one logical statement uses a priori A to say B is true, and another logical statement uses a priori A to say B is false, then that is a real inconsistency and gap in the logic.

But here and now? I think not. I build my logic chains much stronger for it to fall apart so easily, clint.

Anyways, let's take it on face basis that Hamas is a democracy like Israel is a democracy. In the basics that they agree on, anyways. The difference, then, becomes that Israel favors peace because Israel has more to lose in war and more to gain in peace. Hamas has more to gain in war and more to lose in peace.

Because of the way this is setup, it still supports the basic proposition that democracies have a fundamental bias towards.

When a democracy goes to war, the citizenry suffers. When the citizenry suffers to the point where they believe peace is more favorable than war, peace results if the other side is of the same opinion. Hamas has been winning against Israel, therefore democracies NEVER favor peace if they are winning but have not yet won. Not one democracy has ever done that, been winning and then said "oh, we give up, let's have peace before we smash you".

So you see, Clint, Hamas behaves like a democracy whether they are a democracy or not. It can go both ways.

Now you made a good criticism of the logic, that you saw anyways. But there's always something deeper when you have a logical proposition saying "democracies are", simply because you have to define the limits of a democracy first.

Logic is meticulous like that.

So going by the logic. Peace will prevail either when Hamas reaches 3/3 of the requirements for democracy. Or if Hamas starts realling losing in a war. Democracies hate losing in war, they always sue for peace eventually.

Israel is surrounded, and losing, and therefore as a democracy, they favor peace. Hamas is winning, and therefore as a democracy, they favor war. Easy.

Or you can take the other logic path. Hamas fails 2 out of 3 of the prerequisites for democracy, making it incomparable with Israel, who passes 3 out of the 3 of the prerequisites of the democracy.

Now I don't mean to say that 3 is all you need, they are just basic foundationary principles. The bare bones. You can have more, but why bog down the reading, eh.

31 July, 2006 17:00  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home