The Truth (As I see it)

Erm excuse me but I believe the Vulcans were being all logical before humans were!

 

No, if you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't have called it nonsense. So either you understand and don't like what I'm saying, or don't understand and retreat into your nonsense shield.
I'm saying you shouldn't take logic for granted, it's a construct. Hell, you shouldn't take anything for granted. You use logic like it's the be-all end-all of everything, but take a step back and tell me what your point was. Your lack of an answer pisses me off.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean; but I'll attempt to check whether I understood what you were saying, and give a reason why I think it's nonsense, by commenting on something you said in particular.

The way I see it (and the way you do too, I'm sure), astronomy (for example) is the study of celestial objects, and some of those celestial objects are extraterrestrial, and the study of these objects uses investigation and mathematics, and that uses logic. Maybe what you mean is that, since logic is a human construct (rather than a physical one?—surely instinct is as much of a human construct, if logic is...), it's only a certain way of looking at things.

 

But my point is that it only matters to earthlings. Earthlings that use logic. So how important is logic, really, of several billion people out of an entire universe of possibilities use it?

 

As opposed to what?

 

As opposed to nothing, wayne! You're very geocentric. There's an entire universe around this planet. I don't see what logic has to do with the path the stars take through the night sky. Logic may be able to help calculate their velocities, but it does not determine the path they take. Their paths were determined billions of years before logic ever was, and they continue to move in their pre-logic destinies.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Logic isn't as important as you think I think it is, because it's used by several billion people on planet Earth?

 

You really don't have any idea what I'm talking about. It's so easy for me to understand what I'm saying, only because I say it. Stop reducing everything to tautology and contradictions. That's all I ever see you talk about. Informal logic and fallacies and nonsense. Get a new record and play that, instead.

 

Don't give up!

Everybody keep fighting!

 

I've literally just rephrased something you've already said! I could've done that without understanding it.

 

Wayne, I see you use logic a lot. This entire thread is brimming with your tautology and how Xyle is rife with contradictions and stupidity. You took logic courses in school, and now it's your standby for everything. You only listen to things if they're based in logic. You call things nonsense when you don't understand them. Stop using logic for five second and listen to what I'm saying. What Yitzak was trying to say is that logic is just as much a construction of the human mind as is determinism, faith, and hope. What makes you trust it more than faith or hope? It's the same damn thing! That's like falling in love with grass, but fuck reeds cause they don't make sense.

 

Well, I suppose since logic would be something like the study of general correct reasoning, it wouldn't exactly be 'alongside' faith or hope; rather, it would be the foundation which these are built upon, since, if you need some form of language (any kind of ordered, sensible expression) to articulate them to others or to yourself (in your head?), and language needs structure, then language needs logic, and thus, so does faith, &c. I can see why someone would try to make your argument; but it doesn't amount to much, as far as I can see; it's a bit like asking why we use linear kinematics to calculate velocities, paths, distances, &c. instead of faith: we tried both of them, and only one works.

 

Okay, here's something.

In a six-sided organic molecule, there are six shared electrons among six carbon atoms, but also another three electrons shared evenly between the six atoms in the six adjoining areas of covalent bonds.

The funny thing about this six sided ring is that the extra three half-shared electrons are not present as either (one electron) or (not one electron) in the usual orbital patterns, but in a different orbital comprised of one half of an electron at any one time. This conclusively demonstrated hypothesis (a) was another kick in the teeth for your quaint, binary logic as a scientific tool, WS, and (b) occurred to the chemist who devised it in a dream, with a molecule transforming into the oroborus in his dream. A classic example of the essentially mystic source of the leap from observation to hypothesis.

 

Mathematics is a system of consensus, however. Do you think two plus two is four? There may be a new consensus.
You're taking the easy route, wayne. Those are all human inventions. They didn't exist before we did, therefore your argument is invalid. Sure, there's linear kinematics to figure out velocities, but the fact is that things were already moving at that speed, in that particular path, and at a slightly closer distance before we figured that out. The universe marches on regardless of what your particular method is for figuring out how it works. We've only been here for 180,000 years, only been behaving like modern humans for the past 60,000. It really doesn't mean anything. We can't change the universe with our logic, only affirm what it's doing.

 

On (a), I don't dispute that at all, except the claim that it's my quaint, binary logic, which I use as a scientific tool: I never said anything about binary logic being a scientific tool! That's even one of the reasons for my

On (b), I don't dispute that either! Of course people can have sudden insights; in a variety of ways at that, I'd imagine!

A consensus? I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that (though I think I may have a fair idea), but what I will say is,

II + II = IIII
- - + - - = - - - -
n + n = 2n

I ≡ 1
⇒ I + I ≡ 1 + 1
⇒ 1 + 1 = II ≡ 2
⇒ 2 + 2 ≡ II + II
⇒ 2 + 2 = IIII ≡ 4
⇒ 2 + 2 = 4

If somebody comes along and tells me that two plus two is five, I won't know what he means and I'll ask him to show me!

I honestly can't see why it is; but if I grant you that it is, and my point is that the study or 'making sense' of things is based in logic, and you're claiming my argument is invalid, what you seem to be presuming to do is logically prove that there are things not based in logic with logic alone, which seems odd to say the least!

I wonder where you got the idea that I said that we can change the universe with 'our' logic (alone, presumably), if that's what you're saying. I don't think I said that at all!

 

None of you get it, the Vulcans use logic. The Vulcans are the most logical race in the universe.

 

Wayne, I'm trying to tell you that logic doesn't matter. I didn't say you said anything; I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

 

Aren't you using logic by writing and coherently forming an argument with which to tell me that logic doesn't matter, though?

 

Well, there's your problem, then.

 

I actually meant that to be read in the sense that I don't dispute anything you're saying except the claim that it's my quaint, binary logic... That was my mistake, and I corrected it.