Faulty Logic

[wildcat]

Faulty logic is more common than logic.
It is widely accepted as logic.

What is at the bottom of faulty logic?

Who benefits of it?

 

[wildcat]

I have two arguments.

Illness is about stress. True and established.
Directly or indirectly?

Argument 1. Stress causes illness.
Argument 2. Low tolerance to stress is the cause of illness.

Question.
What is the cause of illness?

Think. No extra information is at hand.

 

[Athenian200]

I have two arguments.

Illness is about stress. True and established.
Directly or indirectly?

Argument 1. Stress causes illness.
Argument 2. Low tolerance to stress is the cause of illness.

Question.
What is the cause of illness?

Think. No extra information is at hand.

Low tolerance?

Stress is a symptom of low tolerance for a particular stimulus. The things one has a low tolerance for are likely to make one ill. Thus, similar things cause both stress and illness. Overwhelming stimuli... bacteria, radiation, chemicals, allergens, extreme temperatures and pressures, sustained negative emotions, etc.

I'm not sure if that's too much extra information, though...

 

[Fluffywolf]

Define faulty logic. Science based?

There's proven logic, cold hard facts, science. Then there are theories, hypothesis', and sorts, that, although may be at fault. Have arguementational merit for obervation, in the hopes of expanding logic.

Faulty logic in science is a misconception.


Logic in relations and life in general is subjective to common sense. And it can't be said which is faulty and whichs is not. As argueably all such logic are as faulty or as right as they possibly can be. It just depends on the individual what it means to that person.

This thread to me is not logical. As it is highly biased and open for interpretation.

Argument 1. Stress causes illness. = Hypothesis
Argument 2. Low tolerance to stress is the cause of illness. = The same hypothesis, but with more arguementation.

 

[laughingebony]

There's proven logic, cold hard facts, science.

The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning.

The other 'logic' is biased and subjective.

 

[wildcat]

The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning.

Yes.

 

[wildcat]

Low tolerance?

Stress is a symptom of low tolerance for a particular stimulus. The things one has a low tolerance for are likely to make one ill. Thus, similar things cause both stress and illness. Overwhelming stimuli... bacteria, radiation, chemicals, allergens, extreme temperatures and pressures, sustained negative emotions, etc.

I'm not sure if that's too much extra information, though...

Tolerance is about stress.
Stress is independent of tolerance.

 

[wildcat]

Bias is interpretation.

 

[527468]

I have a question.

 

[Owl]

I have two arguments.

Illness is about stress. True and established.
Directly or indirectly?

Argument 1. Stress causes illness.
Argument 2. Low tolerance to stress is the cause of illness.

Question.
What is the cause of illness?

Think. No extra information is at hand.

If low tolerance to stress were the cause of illness, then persons with a low tolerance to stress would be ill even if they weren't stressed. If this is so, how would illness be about stress?

And no one benefits from faulty logic.

 

[wildcat]

Thank you, Owl.

An intelligent question.

 

[wildcat]

I have a question.

Splended.

 

[527468]

Splended.

If faulty logic is apperant like logic, nevertheless more common than logic and therefore stealing arguments with, how does one detect either within himself? I assume the answer will help you with your very question.

 

[Asterion]

If faulty logic is apperant like, never-the-less more common than, logic, how does one detect either within himself?

I suggest looking deep within, typically you'll need a something sharp and a whole load of alcohol or something similar, like vicodin. Make an incision just above the ear and remove any loose tissue that spouts forth, at this point, you can check for herpies by looking for screaming feathered things. The next step seems to be the crux of the procedure, you'll need to remove the spongy looking thing inside and see if there's logic there. The problem is, nobody knows what logic looks like, but we do know that it doesn't look like this:

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Faulty logic is more common than logic.
It is widely accepted as logic.

What is at the bottom of faulty logic?

Who benefits of it?

Here are some things to consider about faulty logic:

1) Some people find logic difficult to use. They draw conclusions in different ways, so for them faulty logic is a benefit.

2) Anyone trying to persuade people in group #1 benefits from faulty logic.

3) People get emotionally attached to their arguments even if they are framed poorly. If you point out faulty logic that someone used, then often they will still defend their faulty logic, because they are already emotionally attached to their argument. Logic benefits most people when they frame their argument, but it does not benefit them when it is used to point out flaws in their argument.

4) There are some arguments where logic is irrelevant. For example look at the abortion issue. Both sides come up with a long list of reasons why their viewpoint is better. However none of these reasons really matter, because people make their decision on this issue based on what their values are. There values then guide them to either assume a fetus is a person or it isn't. Once someone has made this assumption, then the abortion issue is settled for them and no amount of logic will be able to persuade them.

 

[wildcat]

Here are some things to consider about faulty logic:

1) Some people find logic difficult to use. They draw conclusions in different ways, so for them faulty logic is a benefit.

2) Anyone trying to persuade people in group #1 benefits from faulty logic.

3) People get emotionally attached to their arguments even if they are framed poorly. If you point out faulty logic that someone used, then often they will still defend their faulty logic, because they are already emotionally attached to their argument. Logic benefits most people when they frame their argument, but it does not benefit them when it is used to point out flaws in their argument.

4) There are some arguments where logic is irrelevant. For example look at the abortion issue. Both sides come up with a long list of reasons why their viewpoint is better. However none of these reasons really matter, because people make their decision on this issue based on what their values are. There values then guide them to either assume a fetus is a person or it isn't. Once someone has made this assumption, then the abortion issue is settled for them and no amount of logic will be able to persuade them.

Good points. I agree all the way.

Opinion may count? Not in logic.

 

[wildcat]

Object is not a catch.
Therefore the subject is not in the map at all.

Subject is the map.
Does it frame?

A catch does not frame.
A paradox has no space.
If it had space, it would not paradox.

 

[Into It]

And no one benefits from faulty logic.

Not so!

Faulty logic didn't come about because people were stupid or incapable of 'explaining things' through rationality but because they benefit from 'explaining things away' through rationalization.

If faulty logic were not beneficial, then it simply would not occur, with the exception of conclusions drawn by morons, or even by intelligent people in cases of extreme difficulty or complexity that require careful reasoning. But as you yourself have said, faulty reasoning does not occur only in these circumstances, but frequently - in the OP's argument, even more frequently than sound reasoning. Faulty logic is beneficial because such a judgement is beyond the province of pure logic - or more clearly stated - all things percieved by one to be beneficial are beneficial to him. If one has the desire to lose a leg, removing it is his gain, though others would consider it a loss. That is why judgements of perception cannot be decided through reason.

In light of this, perhaps the first stage of the grieving process - denial - is a positive one, in spite of its blatant irrationality, as a transition period between a traumatic incident and its acceptance may be necessary for the victim's psychic well-being.

Psychic well-being must be considered above rationality itself, because one only applies reason soundly if he feels the most objective interpretation of phenomena is best for his well being. For instance, an INTP making decisions on fanciful whims would certainly become distressed, just as an ENFJ making interpersonal decisions based on rationality alone would be similarly distressed. There is no standard that ranks rationality higher than irrationality, as an argument to prove otherwise would be based purely upon logic itself and would therefore be circular. Paradoxically, a proof for the superiority of irrationality over rationality would rely solely on that wish it attempts to discredit. However, an argument - not a proof - for the same would not be required to be rational at all. For all of the above reasons, unsound reason is every bit as beneficial as sound reason.

 

[wildcat]

If faulty logic is apperant like logic, nevertheless more common than logic and therefore stealing arguments with, how does one detect either within himself? I assume the answer will help you with your very question.

I guess you have to go back to the ground point one.

I had an ex girl friend.
She phoned me too late. She said she just had an abortion.

An example of faulty logic:
The proabortion apology:
A woman must have a say over her own body. Therefore abortion should be made easy.

Is this what my ex girl friend had? Her current boy friend pushed her to it.
This is exactly what usually happens.
She had a say over her own body?


If a woman should have a say over her body abortion should not be made easy.