• 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.

Do you prefer logic or evidence?

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
also saying things like this "6) I'll find out the condition of this device after pressing the start button." tries to make a logical statement from evidence, but fails. You see the only evidence is that device doesent start from pushing the button, making a conclusions that its about the condition of the device is trying to make a logical conclusions from the evidence. In reality, it might be that you didnt push the button properly, forgot to push some other button before that or whatever. You see making a conclusion that is truly logical, you need to eliminate all other possibilities.
I should have written "6) I'll find out something about this device after pressing the button" or something to that effect :D
Just like a properly executed logical system has a hierarchy of statements (you don't get far by atomic statements like "if A, then B") a proper evidence-based inquiry has a series of steps to find out the truth..
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I should have written "6) I'll find out something about this device after pressing the button" or something to that effect :D
Just like a properly executed logical system has a hierarchy of statements (you don't get far by atomic statements like "if A, then B") a proper evidence-based inquiry has a series of steps to find out the truth..

but there is again an logical conclusion, not just evidence. pure evidence is just "i pressed a button and nothing apparent happened". also evidence doesent provide you with the truth, it just provides you with perception, which may or may not represent the underlying truth of thing(but that again requires some logic)
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
By the way, I hope this isn't a Te vs. Ti thread lol. The kind of structured logic that came up earlier is more Te than Ti, actually. :) Ti (in an ITP) is much more fluid and flexible than that kind of rigid thinking.

TBH if there's any function that's based on evidence, it's Sensing in general.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
but there is again an logical conclusion, not just evidence. pure evidence is just "i pressed a button and nothing apparent happened". also evidence doesent provide you with the truth, it just provides you with perception, which may or may not represent the underlying truth of thing(but that again requires some logic)


You are relying only on what is given, not thinking deeper into the scenario. If a button doesn't work when it should, evidence is not simply "the button doesn't work". Evidence is the button does not work because the switch mechanism broke because it was made from a metal rated at 15 ohms in a 20 amp system because whoever installed this button did not have enough foresight to think about this. Logic is uncovering or reasoning each facet, evidence are the facets to be uncovered. Evidence is always as great or greater than what logic can ascribe.


Edit: Logic would be "the switch controlling the connection is broken, if I replace this part the system will work again". However, it will only be truly evidenced once the operation is complete and proves the system functional, bringing my thoughts on evidence being on par or greater with logic full circle yet again.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
You are relying only on what is given, not thinking deeper into the scenario. If a button doesn't work when it should, evidence is not simply "the button doesn't work". Evidence is the button does not work because the switch mechanism broke because it was made from a metal rated at 15 ohms in a 20 amp system because whoever installed this button did not have enough foresight to think about this. Logic is uncovering or reasoning each facet, evidence are the facets to be uncovered. Evidence is always as great or greater than what logic can ascribe.


Edit: Logic would be "the switch controlling the connection is broken, if I replace this part the system will work again". However, it will only be truly evidenced once the operation is complete and proves the system functional, bringing my thoughts on evidence being on par or greater with logic full circle yet again.

the fact that you are making a conclusion that its the switch mechanism is broken or something like that(if you are not actually proving that to be the case), you are making an conclusion that is based on logic, not evidence. evidence only tells you that nothing apparent happened when you pushed the button.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
the fact that you are making a conclusion that its the switch mechanism is broken or something like that(if you are not actually proving that to be the case), you are making an conclusion that is based on logic, not evidence. evidence only tells you that nothing apparent happened when you pushed the button.

Right, but there are methods of testing switches, it is not mere logic we can deduce a falty switch being the cause.

If I look at a fuse, and the metal bridge is burnt and no longer connecting, it is not logic. If I notice the vehicle was struck by lightning, say the antenna is melted, I can logically conclude lightning caused this burnt fuse.

However, it is not necessarily the correct answer simply because they correlate. I've seen many technicians of all forms become baffled over problems because of leaps of logic they took without careful consideration of evidence, it is the true mark of a skilled individual over one who simply memorizes patterns in technique and logic.

Logic. It goes without saying that "evidence" isn't always reliable. Examples intended to support a theory are often chosen without giving thought to ALL potential implications of the theory--what worked in situation A might not be true in situation B--and all possible interpretations of what the link between the theory and example means. Causation vs. correlation and stuff.

Anyway I'm just skeptical of evidence because I've been scarred by the idiotic abuse of it by people with extremely weak grasps of logic. :violin:


So why is evidence the bad guy here? Isn't logic at fault?


In your situation, it will be evidence that deduces the variances between situation A and situation B, not logic. Evidence is the superhero that counters faulty logic, presuming you possess enough to do so...


Also, good thread, [MENTION=988]Santtu[/MENTION].
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Right, but there are methods of testing switches, it is not mere logic we can deduce a falty switch being the cause.

If I look at a fuse, and the metal bridge is burnt and no longer connecting, it is not logic. If I notice the vehicle was struck by lightning, say the antenna is melted, I can logically conclude lightning caused this burnt fuse.

However, it is not necessarily the correct answer simply because they correlate. I've seen many technicians of all forms become baffled over problems because of leaps of logic they took without careful consideration of evidence, it is the true mark of a skilled individual over one who simply memorizes patterns in technique and logic.

"if you are not actually proving that to be the case"
 

mintleaf

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
505
MBTI Type
infp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp
So why is evidence the bad guy here? Isn't logic at fault?


In your situation, it will be evidence that deduces the variances between situation A and situation B, not logic. Evidence is the superhero that counters faulty logic, presuming you possess enough to do so...

Evidence isn't the bad guy. Poor logic is at fault, but I still value sound logic over evidence. Ideally, a sound logical theory will be supported by ample evidence -- I agree with you that it's crucial, just less so than the concept.

Evidence only counters faulty logic when the logical context is clear. Exhibit A can signify any number of things (e.g. Emilia's handkerchief in Othello), but it's logic that clarifies which. That's not a great example because the play has omniscient narration (assumed to be trustworthy) so logic isn't really necessary. But yeah. Sometimes the significance of evidence is so obvious that it alone will suffice, but I would think that in most cases, extra thought is needed.

edit: also, in your switch situation, I still think you make a logical leap based on past experiences, even if it's not conscious. that might be a stretch, though.

Also, good thread, @Santtu.

I agree!
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,578
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I prefer evidence. Logic tends to be kind of boring to me. I use it to explain things to others because I have to.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Evidence isn't the bad guy. Poor logic is at fault, but I still value sound logic over evidence. Ideally, a sound logical theory will be supported by ample evidence -- I agree with you that it's crucial, just less so than the concept.

Evidence only counters faulty logic when the logical context is clear. Exhibit A can signify any number of things (e.g. Emilia's handkerchief in Othello), but it's logic that clarifies which. That's not a great example because the play has omniscient narration (assumed to be trustworthy) so logic isn't really necessary. But yeah. Sometimes the significance of evidence is so obvious that it alone will suffice, but I would think that in most cases, extra thought is needed.

edit: also, in your switch situation, I still think you make a logical leap based on past experiences, even if it's not conscious. that might be a stretch, though.


Sound logic... it really should be an oxymoron. If science can teach anyone anything it's that theory is just that, and will likely be overturned in light of new evidence during the next generation of scientific study.

I can't see past the fact that evidence is always always always as or more pure than logic. It's like choosing human knowledge over omniscience.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
Based on the OP, I am entirely evidence based. I make quick predictions, but evidence is always what I would go off of in those listed situations.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Evidence.

And I don't think this is logic versus evidence. It's Si versus Se. With Si being what you're calling "logic."
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,578
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Evidence.

And I don't think this is logic versus evidence. It's Si versus Se. With Si being what you're calling "logic."

Logic is generally Ti ish.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Logic is generally Ti ish.

Those statements weren't logic. That was his point. He was mocking what some people are calling "logic."

Si isn't about memory, contrary to popular bizarre belief.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,578
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Those statements weren't logic. That was his point. He was mocking what some people are calling "logic."

Si isn't about memory, contrary to popular bizarre belief.

Looking at the OP, I understand what you are saying.

I am fully aware of what Si is.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
depends
if we're talking about general or theoretical concepts: logic. sometimes things are intuitively obvious and necessitating evidence to prove them is overkill
if we're talking about actually getting something done: evidence. sometimes what works in reality really isn't logical at all
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Looking at the OP, I understand what you are saying.

I am fully aware of what Si is.

Hmmm. Then why did you feel a need to tell me that logic is generally Ti-ish? School should start as the same time as last week is Si. Someone "should" be happy because "they did happy things" actually sounds like some marriage of Si and Fe.

If someone invited me for beer, then they should buy all the beer. Whose Si is that? That can't be anything but Si. That's not even logic. What has one thing got to do with the other.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,578
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hmmm. Then why did you feel a need to tell me that logic is generally Ti-ish? School should start as the same time as last week is Si. Someone "should" be happy because "they did happy things" actually sounds like some marriage of Si and Fe.

If someone invited me for beer, then they should buy all the beer. Whose Si is that? That can't be anything but Si. That's not even logic. What has one thing got to do with the other.

Si is at its essence, memory based. It is associated with tradition, what has happened in the past, precise recollections of that and what is familiar and what we rely on. The essence of it is a predictable standard. It is recalling stored memory and comparing and contrasting what is in that memory with current experience. It is like a matching function - now vs. past.

Think of it this way:
- what does this remind me of?
- what have we learned in the past?
- what rules or conventions apply here?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Si is at its essence, memory based. It is associated with tradition, what has happened in the past, precise recollections of that and what is familiar and what we rely on. The essence of it is a predictable standard. It is recalling stored memory and comparing and contrasting what is in that memory with current experience. It is like a matching function - now vs. past.

Think of it this way:
- what does this remind me of?
- what have we learned in the past?
- what rules or conventions apply here?

Look I don't think I need you to tell me this when I can read Jung myself, but I think you may need to, since you're calling Si "a matching function."

7. The Introverted Sensation Type

The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object [p. 502] did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, every-day expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion. [p. 505]

the odd examples in the OP are mostly Si, with some Fe thrown in a couple of them...
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,578
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As much detail as you have provided, I'm not sure you understand the essence of the functions and what they mean.
 
Top