• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

INTPs - why do they love fancy-shmancy snooty debates?

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.

What do you mean by "formal logic"?
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
Formal logic

Formal logic
Formal logic is a set of rules for making deductions that seem self evident. Syllogisms like the following occur in every day conversation.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Mathematical logic formalizes such deductions with rules precise enough to program a computer to decide if an argument is valid.
This is facilitated by representing objects and relationships symbolically. For example we might use for the set of humans, for the set of mortal creatures and for Socrates. We use the symbolic expression `' to indicate that object is a member of set . Thus we represent `Socrates is a human' with . We use the `quantifier' to indicate that all objects satisfy some condition. For example all men are mortal can be written as . This reads that every that has the property of being human must also have the property of being mortal. Then we restate the syllogism as follows.

Logic assumes something cannot be both true and not true. It looks only at the truth value of a proposition. It involves simple relationships between these truth values. These can be represented by truth tables as shown in Table 3.1. The only logical operations required are the three in this figure. Others such as implication represented by `' can be constructed from these three. is the same as . implies requires that either both and are true or is false.

Determining the truth of a logical expression that contains no quantifiers (like ) is a straightforward application of simple rules. One can use a truth table to evaluate each subexpression starting with those at the root of the expression tree as shown in Table 3.2. If a logical expression contains quantifiers than we need to evaluate a logical relationship over a range of values to determine the truth of the expression. If the range is infinite then there is no general way to evaluate the expression. We can use induction3.2to prove that some statements hold for all integers but for that we need to go beyond logic to mathematics.

Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Formal logic



Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.

What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics? Fallacies and the application of certain basic logics (e.g., enthymemes, syllogistic) to discussions that take place in natural language is practical reasoning. What is the problem with using practical reason?
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).

btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.

The response
lolwat? How does formal logic break down if it is not by logical inconsistencies and wtf is "anti-formal logic"?
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics? Fallacies and the application of certain basic logics (e.g., enthymemes, syllogistic) to discussions that take place in natural language is practical reasoning. What is the problem with using practical reason?

I maintain one has nothing to do with the other, and tcda has yet to demonstrate otherwise.
 

ragashree

Reason vs Being
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,770
MBTI Type
Mine
Enneagram
1w9
:rofl1: I love it! This thread has now officially turned into an INTP analytical breakdown fest! Thanks guys ;)
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
The response

"anti-formal logic" is nothing. I just meant that dialectical materialism is opposed to formal logic.

Formal logic can break down if we can show if osmething can be both true and untrue at the same time. However dialectical logic does not break down if we show this, because "unity of opposites" is one of the three fundamental rules of dialectical materialism (the other two being "negation of the negation" and "quantity into quality").

So how, according to a formal logic x sometimes = -x, and sometimes not?

@ragashree - could it be any other way? :D
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics?

How can you arbitrarily seperate the two? If I state that something "cannot both be true and untrue at the same time", this is an absolute statement. If it is proved wrong in one field, it is proved wrong as a logical rule in general.

I could make the argument for things that are both "true and untrue" in history, but it would be much harder to convince you, as you would say it's my "subjective opinion". However, with maths and physics, no such accusation can be made.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Thank you, dear participants, for proving my point. G'night.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.

What does it mean to "apply" formal logic to history and politics, or, for that matter, anything else?
 

Resonance

Energizer Bunny
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
740
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
6w5
This is a different helios from the one who accidentally posted pictures of his testicles, right?
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
Thank you, dear participants, for proving my point. G'night.

Did you ever think you might yourself be living up to negative stereotypes about INTJ's? (i.e. highly-strung, needlessly rude, "brooding" like a genius but without intellectual acheivements to back up said attitude, etc.?) :tongue:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway seeing as MBTI is about communication and not throwing insults, I will explain. I do not see it as "nerdy" or "mental masturbation" to justify a philosophical system, because a philosophical system has real life implications. You say you want to get "the heart of the issue", but to me you cannot get to the heart of an issue in an ad-hoc manner, differing issue-by-issue, rather you need to approach it with the correct logical framework to begin with. In fact once you have the correct framework 95% of the work is done.

This is not an MBTI thing, as I know people of varying types who agree on this. Perhaps however, such an approach does come more instictively to an IXTP.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
i think many of them use fancy words like that more than they normally would just to live up to the smartsy intp image

or maybe they are the most accurate words to use many times?
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
"anti-formal logic" is nothing. I just meant that dialectical materialism is opposed to formal logic.

Formal logic can break down if we can show if osmething can be both true and untrue at the same time. However dialectical logic does not break down if we show this, because "unity of opposites" is one of the three fundamental rules of dialectical materialism (the other two being "negation of the negation" and "quantity into quality").

So how, according to a formal logic x sometimes = -x, and sometimes not?

The response(wtf have I started?:doh:) :
him said:
Ok, at least he is correct on how formal logic breaks down, or to be precise how logical systems based on formal logic break down, to bad for him that is what is called logical inconsistencies, which he refused to acknowledge. This can only happen if the axioms lead to contradictory results(see Russel's paradox for an interesting development of the foundation of mathematics, as well as Frege's dreams being crushed). This does not mean that formal logic is at fault.



you said:
So how, according to a formal logic x sometimes = -x, and sometimes not?:


him said:
First of all, for all algebraic systems, including the real numbers 0 = -0, so this equation isn't faulty in any way. He probably is assuming x != 0, so ok, i'll give him an example of this. Take again the Z_2 or just any Z_(2k), where k \in N, the natural numbers(and the operation * is not a*b = a+b mod 2k). Then for, say k=2, we have the elements {0,1,2,3}. The operation table would be , like this:

0 * x = 0
1 * 0 = 1
1 * 1 = 2
1 * 2 = 3
1 * 3 = 0
2 * 1 = 3
2 * 2 = 0
..... and so on.
But here we have 2 * 2 = 0
if we denote the inverse element of the element x, by -x, we get: 2 = -2, and the equation x = -x has a non-zero solution.

I suspect he is just reading things that are way over his head and drawing bad conclusions. So formal logic is failing; for him.


someone else said:
I don't have time for a full response, but I'd like to point out that the person cited by the OP's final point about how political or historical debates cannot be constrained within formal logic is wholly irrational. Similar to how Einstein's theories and Newton's laws work in the natural world despite quantum mechanics, the analysis of an understood system doesn't alter in truth based on obscure exceptions to the method of analysis. That only alludes to what we don't understand, but doesn't change the functionality or accuracy of an analytical system like formal logic, ESPECIALLY in a day-to-day sense.
 

mrcockburn

Aquaria
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,896
MBTI Type
¥¤
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Jesus Christ. Look at the two of you go. And considering what my whole post was about.

This is practically satire material. :doh:
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Among INTPs there is a love of intellectual discourse to be sure, and many sport a rather pedantic verbiage. For those whose posts favor brevity, and whose spoken words are few, there is no inconsistency (Why not use a single word that represents a sentence or more?). It is the few who choose to sprinkle their long-winded lectures with little gems from their handy-dandy-thesauri who are apt to put others to sleep.

Also, the INTP often misses the point of intellectual conversation (to adequately transfer information), and fails to express himself in a way that resonates with his audience; vomiting his words at the feet of his listeners, so to speak.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
The fallacies are easy to remember. In fact, it was necessary for the written portion of the GRE (though admittedly they did not require that we memorize the Latin.) They're also used ALL THE TIME in academic writing.

I memorized them early on (in high school) because I was tired of coming across phrases like "post hoc" in my reading and either not knowing, or having to cross-reference, their meaning. It seems like I'd be missing a lot, or incompetent in some way, if I didn't know them (especially since they're simple and pretty easy to remember.) And once you know them, it's difficult not to use them for greater concision.

You're right, as usual, but the search of fallacies isn't especially associated with INTPs.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of INTPs here don't even know what a real "strawman" fallacy is, they just use the term inappropriately and for every purpose. It's just a standard, pedantic (but ignorant) way to say they disagree with you. Epistemological figures aren't that easy to understand or master, unless, like you said, you had been professionally trained to recognize them.

And if you ask them the difference between a deduction, an abduction, an induction or a transduction, most of them won't know how to answer it, unless they google it and try to mimick knowledge they don't really possess.

Remember that most young INTPs are just posers.
 
Top