hey guys, I'm having trouble with a guy on another forum in a debate, and I can't seem to pick apart his argument. Its not because I can't see any flaw in it, its just because I can even decipher what he is saying. That might be a failing on my part, but I feel like I'm head butting a brick wall. I want to know whether I'm right, or whether I'm overlooking something. Educate me please.


OPPONENT:
1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.


ME:
You assumed that logic is subjective (I see no proof for it in your original argument: you simply said 'logic is subjective' with no proof.) Kovnik has shown that it is NOT objective. However you have dismissed this arguments simply because you ASSUME that logic is subjective. You are not debating, you are simply making unsupported statements. THAT ISN'T A DEBATE! Support your arguments or they are invalid.
Furthermore, he hasn't even used logic to prove logic. Logic itself is defined as use of tautological statements. A priori knowledge. A logical statement is by its very definition objective. Examples are 1+1=2. You're not seriously going to tell me that the logic I use to define 1+1 as 2 is subjective are you?
If I say:
"a=k
j=k
therefore a=j"
that I am using subjective reasoning? Its simple fact derived from objective logic.
I will ask you to provide on instance of logic being subjective. Do so and I may agree (but you won't).
I'm sorry mate, but I'm not the dim one. I'm making developed deductive arguments. You're just saying random crap. Plus don't insult me, you're being ad hominem, and achieving nothing by it other than showing yourself to be petty and unable to support your own arguments without resorting to insults.
Furthermore, you say that logic is used to process a posteriori facts. this is simply not true, logic is able to do so much more.
1+1=2 is a logically accepted statement. We logically (via a priori learning) know that 1+1=2, as you cannot prove that 1+1=2 via empirical observation. You can use logic to analyse anything that fits a logical pattern, it doesn't matter if it relates to the world or not.
Furthermore, even if you're correct in saying such a thing, my observations concerning determinism are entirely empirical, so that argument in no way applies.


Come on man, actually debate, don't just spew out nonsense. Its no fun that way, I actually want an intelligent discussion. Make your posts more than 3 lines long, as me and my friend have been doing. Support your claims.


OPPONENT:
So I should use your own version of logic, in order to prove that your logic is worthless?


MY ALLY:
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
OPPONENT:
All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.


ME:
However you haven't supported your arguments, as I have already shown, whereas Kovnik has, therefore your arguments are void one liners, that don't conclude anything. Sorry, you need to address what I have said, otherwise your entire argument is void.


its not MY version of logic. It is THE version of logic.
It is objective not subjective.
You have failed to show in any way that it is subjective. What you seem to be saying is that "i say its subjective and so it is". If that, by your standards, is logic then I don't even know why you are in this topic. If logic is simply saying "I say so, so its true" then yes, it is subjective. But thats not what logic is. Logic, by definition, is using tautological statements. What you are using, although you label it logic, ISNT logic! Stop pretending it is. if you can SHOW it is, I will agree, but if you can't, and logic is simply assumption, I can say "i win this thread" and i auto magically do. Thats not logic, sorry.


Furthermore, you have ignored half of my post. It overturns your arguments. Address it or retire, those are your options.


If you're going to have an intelligent discussion, back up your points.
Show me an instance of subjective logic, otherwise your points are void.


OPPONENT:
Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work.
Clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
This is the great rift valley:

Within which, logic works.


Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while.
Problem is people use that to justify the existence of a god (which is bs).
What you call "logic" is the plaything of bourgeois layabouts, it has no practical or technical use whatsoever, and is bunk.
But you use your own logic to justify its validity, so it doesn't bother you. If you can't see that paradox, I pity you.

We all know that logic is synonymous to common sense. So he wants to use your logic (common sense) to make it seem worthless. Well I don't sense anything wrong in his statement but that doesn't mean I sense anything right. I just don't understand, probably grammar or he really thinks like that. Anyway, if you think he's stupid, just leave him.

"Don't fight with stupid people, they'll beat you with experience."

yeah I'd rather see his side of the story instead of yours, because in his eyes you're just as dumb as you think he is.

got a link to the debate? I'll tear him a new one tomorrow

If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.

This is not subjective in any way. It is also not made up, or evolved, by humans. It is discovered by humans. Logic is not a "thing" which can be objective or subjective; it is truth. When something is logically true, or "necessary", it is defined as "true in all possible universes".

He pointed to what happens when you take logic to "the very small" and he says that it breaks. This is not true. There is a branch of logic called "quantum logic" which is designed to deal with that level of reality. It removes the principle of bivalence because of particles being in two places at once at that level. But as even W.V. Quine, a great opponent of absolute truths such as logic, admitted, once you start admitting quantum logic you are no longer doing logic. The logical truths are still objective but they contain assumptions about the rules involved, just like how 2+2=4 assumes two is oo and four is oooo.

And under no system does modus ponens (A->B, A, so B) break. This is not debatable. If A is true and B is not then A->B is false. This is how A->B is defined. You cannot get around this. And from modus ponens you can prove all of mathematics, all the equivalence laws, all the laws of implication, and a hundred or so theses of metalogic.

Tell him you are not using your logic and he is not using his because logic is not a thing. It cannot be said to exist - it is just truth. It cannot be right or wrong - it is used to prove what is right or wrong.

I hate arguments about people's "logic". Someone telling someone else their logic is flawed isn't going to change their opinion if they've thought out their opinion. They've came to a conclusion via A->B, A therefore B, and so in their mind their reasoning holds up to scrutiny, however the other person has done exactly the same but reached a different conclusion, usually on something subjective.

The problem is logic is now used as a synonym for reasoning. So someones logic can be batshit crazy, which is why I don't necessarily agree with what Zed said. We're only really talking semantics here, however.

Yeah, I know I probable come across as stupid on this, though i have not paraphrased that at all apart from cutting off the opening of the debate (determinism, my favourite) as it was a tangent. Ah well, I just don't think I can get through to him.

Zed, I hope you won't mind if I steal some of your points there

Feel free even to copy and paste if you like.