Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  24

  FINDING a logical way of seeing problems of RACE, RELIGION, TERRORISM

  by Terry in

  1. social
  2. current

  hard questions lead to problematic answers.

  "tricky, complicated, and controversial.).

  emotions stem from values and values are personal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Terry, I appreciate that you're attempting to get people to think - but asking a loaded questions is NOT the way to do it.

  "In terms of race, who are these people?" The only possible way to 'correctly' answer this question is to list a race. However, when we see rioting it is never done by a single race. The question cannot be answered in terms of race. It is an inadequate metric to address the situation. You can't use a tape measure to figure out the color of a wall. You can't use race to figure out what's causing the riots.

  The same problem exists with your question about religion. While religion does cause a lot of strife - there is no destructive action that is unique to only one religion. While abortion clinic bombings are often committed by Christians - they are not ALWAYS committed by Christians. Suicide bombings in croweded market places are often committed my Muslims. But they are not ALWAYS committed by Muslims.
• 
  17

  Science Stoppers

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a science stopper is " a hypothesis that makes no testable or useful predictions and therefore prevents any science from being performed based on that hypothesis.

  " a common example of this would be the claim that god(s) created our universe.

  having no way of telling "created" universes apart from "non-created" universes prevents the claim from ever being verified or from being debunked.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  A Science Stopper is " a hypothesis that makes no testable or useful predictions and therefore prevents any science from being performed based on that hypothesis." A common example of this would be the claim that God(s) created our universe. Having no way of telling "created" universes apart from "non-created" universes prevents the claim from ever being verified or from being debunked.

  When he theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli was presented with untestable hypothesis by his students he would use the phrase, "It's not only not right - it's not even wrong." When you make a prediction and that claim is shown to be right or shown to be wrong there is an increase in knowledge. However, when the claim cannot be tested there is noting gained. It's just an empty ad hoc. While these sorts of things make for great premises for a movie plot (e.g. The Matrix) they sever no function for making determinations about reality.

  When someone says 'you're not even wrong' it implies that "not only are you not making a valid point in a discussion, but you don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself , or the things that need to be understood in order to participate."
• 
  19

  Before the Big Bang.....

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watch the world's greatest physicists discuss the questions, the physics, the math, the ideas being tested about the formation of the universe..... .

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wh179kos0.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  The tools we build are built within the limits of our cognitive ability.

  galaxie

  Alright, without using mathamatics, physics, or any scientfic principles please build a car or a computer.
• 
  8

  Even when you're right - it's still possible to make bad arguments.

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  during heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning.

  it's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments.

  the best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  There are only two places that an arguement can be wrong. Either the premises used to support a conclusion are not true - or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

  That's it. That's the only two places you need look when addressing a claim. Once you understand this basic prinicple of logic it makes seeing the logical fallacies of politicians, and everyone else, infinitely easier.

  To your point Phizzy, the only time someone could make a "good argument when they're wrong" is if we were operating under false premises that we believed to be true. Though, once the premise was discovered to be false or not supportable, the wrong argument would cease to be a "good" argument.
• 
  8

  Even when you're right - it's still possible to make bad arguments.

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  during heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning.

  it's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments.

  the best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  It's a fundamental difficulty in epistomology, being right and being wrong feels exactly the same - because we only hold positions that we believe to be true. It's only when we realize we are wrong that we feel embarasment or disapointment.
• 
  19

  Before the Big Bang.....

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watch the world's greatest physicists discuss the questions, the physics, the math, the ideas being tested about the formation of the universe..... .

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wh179kos0.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Just about everything about our modern world is "beyond our limited thought process."

  That's why we use and build tools. Like mathamatics, phsyics, quantum mechanics, scientific method, etc. And as we build new tools - those new tools help us build even better tools. So long as we can continue building better tools there's nothing in principle that would be beyond our reach. We've built computers that do trillions of calculations per second. And who knows, maybe in the furture we'll start making smarter people.
• 
  8

  Even when you're right - it's still possible to make bad arguments.

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  during heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning.

  it's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments.

  the best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  During heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning. It's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments. The best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic. Hopefully, shinning light on some fallacies will arm you for the future. Here's just a few I've spotted recently:

  .

  Darren Wilson hasn't been indicted - therefore Brown was lawfully shot by the officer

  (Tautology rhetoric - a self-reinforcing pretense) This arguement precludes the possibility that a person can do something unlawful and simultaneously not be indicted.

  .

  Some people looted a store in Furguson - therefore the Hands Up Don't Shoot movement is a farce

  (Biased Sample - drawing conclusions about a group of people from a non-representive sample) Just becasue some, if any, of the people involved in this movement looted a store it does not follow the movement is a farce.

  .

  Michael Brown robbed a convenience store - therefore we should not support his right to life

  (Non Sequitur - presenting evidence that is irrelevant to the conclusion) We still support peoples right to life regardless if they have or haven't robbed convenience stores.

  .
• 
  116

  Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  chris tann,.

  in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

  however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  "Something from nothing" is still totally absurd when one really contemplates it.

  -Apognophos

  It's not absurd. It's merely counter-intuitive . . . just like every other part of quantum mechanics. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the Casimir Effect. Just because some aspect of our universe isn't readily comprehensible to the mind of a layman doesn't mean that it's therefore absurd. And it certainly doesn't give you license to put forth the arguement, "well this one aspect of reality seems absurd to me - so I can postulate whatever absurd thing I like."

  There's a reason science uses reason and evidence. Because our intuitions are tuned only to the scale at which we live. Things going on at scales very small and very large are alien to the hueristic models we use in our everyday lives.

  But is it more absurd than the idea that a self-making universe produced intelligent beings who can in turn create things? Either way you are looking at intelligence forming from nothing.

  Fallacy of false equivication. Starting out with an all powerful creator is NOT the same as a finite intelligence that has slowly formed over billions of years of evolution. Human intelligence has come about by a naturalistic process. There is no such method for Gods to come into existence.
• 
  19

  Before the Big Bang.....

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watch the world's greatest physicists discuss the questions, the physics, the math, the ideas being tested about the formation of the universe..... .

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2wh179kos0.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Who could deny the existence of factors beyond our comprehension?

  This question is framed backwards, the real question is who could ACCEPT the existence of factors beyond our comprehension? We can only address the known and the knowable. We can't know an unknowable or even know if an unknowable exists - so why worry about it?
• 
  15

  Proof and Evidence

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  we can't explain something - therefore god.

  checkmate atheist!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  "Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

  Touchdown!

  "Having no good reason to believe something is at least one good reason not to believe it."

  And the crowd goes wild!

  (I think I just debunked myself)