Logic Question???? (1 Viewer)

[StillPhil]

I got into a discussion with my Dad last night. I'll try to sum this up as best I can.
We were talking about Terror attacks. My Dad said that we have to see things from the terrorists point of view in order to understand why they would do something like this. Our example was 9-11.
I agreed with him on that count.
Here's where he lost me. He said that--in the minds of the terrorists, they saw their actions as logical. He said that based on their beliefs, logic to the terrorists was different than everyone elses logic.
I disagreed and even looked the word "logic" up in the dictionary. According to the definition, it said 'logic--the science not of belief, but the science of proof and evidence.'
So I read the definition out loud to him, then I said, "Well, if we look at the natural process of life, we are born--we live--we die (naturally-not including murder/suicide/abortion). So it would make sense to draw the conclusion that--logically speaking--everyone has the right to live. So what the terrorists did was completely illogical."

My assertion has nothing to do with abortion issues, so please don't comment if you're only going to spout your rightousness on that issue.

My question though is...am I correct in my definition of logic? Did my explanation make sense? Am I way off base? Did I even hit the mark?

My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?

I'd really appreciate a scientific response.

Thanks.
PHil

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think you're using a ****-poor, unecessarily narrow definition of logic. Further, even irrational behavior can follow a sort of rationality.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Here's where he lost me. He said that--in the minds of the terrorists, they saw their actions as logical. He said that based on their beliefs, logic to the terrorists was different than everyone elses logic.

What I think he is saying here, when he says their "logic" was different from everyone elses, is that they are plugging in a different set of facts/assumptions for their premises, thus they get a unique conclusion. He is right very much so if and only if he is saying that they have their own "valid" logical organization so long as their own premises lead to their own conclusion.

For example, logical arguments are generally broken up into two major categories:

1. Sound
2. Valid

Valid arguments are arguments in which the assumed premises lead to a conclusion, but a sound argument is different. It's an argument in which the premises themselves are correct. For example, you can have a valid argument that is sound, and you can have a valid argument that is unsound. I will show you an example more concrete:

All Cats are queer animals
All queer animals are stupid
Ergo, all Cats are stupid

This is obviously a nonsense argument, yet it is logically valid. It is still logically incorrect, however, in the sense that it's not sound. The premises are simply not true.

It is quite possible that the premises used by muslims to justify their actions (conclusions) are not true at all, are wrong, or totally made up. Only in that sense is there logic "different." I think your father is speaking of the content that makes up logic. The "logic" rules themselves aren't different, because logic is a mathematical system used to derrive rational thought. It makes stuff clear and concise. You can also be logical, but be wrong.

I disagreed and even looked the word "logic" up in the dictionary. According to the definition, it said 'logic--the science not of belief, but the science of proof and evidence.'

It is. The rules and methods of logic are culturally/personally independent, but the content that can make them sound is not.

So I read the definition out loud to him, then I said, "Well, if we look at the natural process of life, we are born--we live--we die (naturally-not including murder/suicide/abortion). So it would make sense to draw the conclusion that--logically speaking--everyone has the right to live. So what the terrorists did was completely illogical."

This is where I disagree. Just beacuse things are born, live, and die, does not imply that we have a right to live. There are no "rights" outside of social concepts. Rights are a social invention. You aren't born with a right. Logically speaking, the only people who have rights are those are protected and given them or people who have the power to maintain them (if they are't protected).

My question though is...am I correct in my definition of logic? Did my explanation make sense? Am I way off base? Did I even hit the mark?

It is a correct, but slightly vague definition.

My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?

[

The logic itself can never be subjective, but the content you use can be, especially when dealing with Ethics.

 

[Kelzie]

In addition to what Technocrat is saying, a lot of logic differences are a matter of premises.

We talked about this in an ethics class last year. If you kill enemy combatants, you are closer to winning the war, right? That seems pretty logical. Well, our definition of enemy combatants is different than theirs. We think soldiers, they think anyone supporting the system. It is a difference in the assumptions that you base your argument on.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I tried to work on creating an ethical system based on pure logic, but let's say it failed miserably, since doing so would actually allow something to be both right and wrong at the same time, according to the same theory. I think it's kinda poetic that a logic-based ethics criterion would end up being illogical.

 

[StillPhil]

Okay, wow. Thank you Technocrat and Kelzie. That was very helpful. As much as I try to use reason and logic to make decisions, I'm afraid that a lot of times things fly over my head. But I appreciate the long detailed response.
Thanks again.
PHil

 

[DivineComedy]

I tried to work on creating an ethical system based on pure logic, but let's say it failed miserably, since doing so would actually allow something to be both right and wrong at the same time, according to the same theory. I think it's kinda poetic that a logic-based ethics criterion would end up being illogical.

I would like to think that prior to the attempt to create morals through ethics some people probably figured that Skeptics would emerge, so to “logically” explain what actions were needed for survival they needed a god. That does not mean that there is no God. If we give up on ethics we leave it to God to save the weak among us.

From the perspective of Osama his arguments are logical. America is supporting Israel. And from Osama‘s point of view allowing an Israeli State is not compatible with his beliefs, and he believes he can quote the Koran to back up what he believes. We were occupying bases in Saudi Arabia, and from his point of view we were doing it to keep Iraq from destroying the Zionist entity (Saddam’s way of referring to Israel). Just read the three Iraq facts of his February 23, 1998 fatwa and the argument it is perfectly logical from his point of view:

“Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.”

Just attacking Al Quacka with law enforcement (in a hostile swamp) could not remove the fatwa, or the “logical” argument, that persuades intelligent people to wage war against the West. We must either defeat the argument, which many would probably say is impossible, or make the enemy identifiable and uniform (as in wearing the uniform of a nation, so we can more easily exterminate the occupants of their territory should they wage war against us, until victory {peace} is achieved by one side or the other).

It is perfectly logical that we can not fight Al Quacka with law enforcement if we give into Osama’s demands, and we certainly can‘t fight the argument in a hostile territory. From my perspective, and understanding Osama’s perspective, if we give in to the demands for the destruction of the State of Israel we give validity to the arguments that we have no right to exist free either. Osama’s ilk are not against Israel simply because they occupy Palestinian lands and kill Muslim there. From my perspective any American that supports International A.N.S.W.E.R is a moron or an enemy of the United States of America.

To Osama’s ilk we are unbelievers and fated to be led by Shaitain into darkness, in that from his perspective an all seeing and all knowing Allah does not lead the unbelievers. From their fatalistic perspective there is no compulsion in religion because belief is distinct from error, as a muslim in Florida that was defending the Taliban one month before 911 made clear to me, there is no debate and I was just to read the Koran: after 911 that muslim‘s web site linked to the Mujahideen and supported Osama. From Osama’s concept of Islam no compulsion in religion does not mean we can reject Islam. Some logical method must explain why we do not believe when messengers come to us. For their religion to spread it had to spread by conquest, as it spread more in 75 years than Christianity did in three hundred. Nobody can be allowed to leave their religion. It logically explains why killing us is not a problem, for his little god does not sup with sinners or spread the word by teaching (only to dust their feet off {Matthew 10:14}, and leaving it to God’s judgment day, when rudely rejected). Adherents to his religion could never have founded a nation like the United States, but Christians could.

To Osama’s religion God did not play dice, like with a Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, to give us the free will that makes us created in God‘s image. Jesus understands the unbelievers, he understands a doubting Thomas, and still loves him, and Osama’s version of Islam does not. Remember what Osama said:

“Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.”

There is no uncertainty principle when God controls the clouds and defeats factionalism, but in Christianity the Lord’s prayer clearly says we are to pray for God’s will to be “done in earth, as in heaven.” Clearly, Jesus through the Lord’s prayer is logically consistent with the uncertainty principle and Osama’s religion is not. The same with Abraham bartering with God for the lives in Sodom, it is consistent with uncertainty. Now, if you could prove the uncertainty principle is something more than a theory, a valid argument could be made to prove Osama’s religion is a false religion, and you would not even have to touch [60.8] of the Koran to do it.

{This post was typed in a hurry, so hopefully I did not make any mistakes to be jumped upon as proof of my ignorance.}

 

[robin]

I got into a discussion with my Dad last night. I'll try to sum this up as best I can.
We were talking about Terror attacks. My Dad said that we have to see things from the terrorists point of view in order to understand why they would do something like this. Our example was 9-11.
I agreed with him on that count.

I'm not sure the logic on either side is that different apart from one glaring difference consequence & that is 3,000 died as a consequence of Bin Laden's 911 action & 25,000 Iraqi's & 1,900 US soldiers have died as a consequence of Bush's actions.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4097&highlight=hardline
Logic is the science of the formal principles of reasoning.... not the science of proof & evidence.
That is more akin to validation of data from measurements & observations.

 

[DivineComedy]

I'm not sure the logic on either side is that different apart from one glaring difference consequence & that is 3,000 died as a consequence of Bin Laden's 911 action & 25,000 Iraqi's & 1,900 US soldiers have died as a consequence of Bush's actions.

Robin, UNICEF blamed 500,000 deaths on your boy, but their moral cowardice wouldn’t let them say it, and then your boy claimed one million deaths, and those deaths are a direct consequence of your boy’s actions, which is all before the February 23, 1998 fatwa. The only problem is that you are as blind as our boy was at the time.

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

Take that logic and choke on it.

 

[robin]

Robin, UNICEF blamed 500,000 deaths on your boy, but their moral cowardice wouldn’t let them say it, and then your boy claimed one million deaths, and those deaths are a direct consequence of your boy’s actions, which is all before the February 23, 1998 fatwa. The only problem is that you are as blind as our boy was at the time.

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

Take that logic and choke on it.

What has party politics got to do with this ?
Is 'my boy' supposed to be Clinton ?
Why's he 'my boy' ?
I think there are some questions to be asked of your logic.. or lack of it !

 

[Kelzie]

What has party politics got to do with this ?
Is 'my boy' supposed to be Clinton ?
Why's he 'my boy' ?
I think there are some questions to be asked of your logic.. or lack of it !

What, you don't remember fathering him? :mrgreen:

 

[robin]

What, you don't remember fathering him? :mrgreen:

What me... Clinton's father :lol:

 

[UtahBill]

I think you and your dad are using the word logic where the word mindset would serve better. We have seen this mindset issue before, anytime we fight someone who is Asian, Eastern, middle eastern, etc. They have an entirely different culture, mindset, etc. than us and we nearly always underestimate our enemies in this respect.
Whichever word you use, they think differently than we do.

 

[DivineComedy]

What me... Clinton's father :lol:

Clinton is my boy, "UK," and since you blame everyone but Saddam I just thought you were related.

 

[akyron]

My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?

I'd really appreciate a scientific response.

Thanks.
PHil

The logic is subjective because its based on faith. Religion is a nutty thing indeed and should have no involvment with logic but people make decisions based upon faith all the time. example: gambling is faith based. If you know the winner it is not gambling. You may chase the odds in a logical manner but in the end you are at the mercy of chance.

"Kill the infidels" is perfectly logical when you have been raised in a madrassas since you were four and being whacked in the head with the Koran three hundred times a day for eleven years in a row.


PBS analysis included in the above link.

I personally dont think this will be over until the mideast is democratized and sixty to ninety years go by. The larger regions have been a problem for centuries if not longer. Solving this problem overnight wont happen.
Stop whats producing terrorists and then give the generation time to die out. Killing them manually is too much work anyway.

Hey! The sunnis came out to vote this week! No matter what they voted the democratic process is rolling. Mere participation is a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Canuck]

I got into a discussion with my Dad last night. I'll try to sum this up as best I can.
We were talking about Terror attacks. My Dad said that we have to see things from the terrorists point of view in order to understand why they would do something like this. Our example was 9-11.
I agreed with him on that count.
Here's where he lost me. He said that--in the minds of the terrorists, they saw their actions as logical. He said that based on their beliefs, logic to the terrorists was different than everyone elses logic.
I disagreed and even looked the word "logic" up in the dictionary. According to the definition, it said 'logic--the science not of belief, but the science of proof and evidence.'
So I read the definition out loud to him, then I said, "Well, if we look at the natural process of life, we are born--we live--we die (naturally-not including murder/suicide/abortion). So it would make sense to draw the conclusion that--logically speaking--everyone has the right to live. So what the terrorists did was completely illogical."

My assertion has nothing to do with abortion issues, so please don't comment if you're only going to spout your rightousness on that issue.

My question though is...am I correct in my definition of logic? Did my explanation make sense? Am I way off base? Did I even hit the mark?

My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?

I'd really appreciate a scientific response.

Thanks.
PHil

mabe your Dad meant that the logic of 9/11 was in the fact that it was the only way the terrorists could fight back .they have no other means but terror to fight back

the terrorists retaliate because America has built military bases in Saudi Arabia,Isreal they see it as an act of agression

the crusades then England and now America invade their land
this has made many of them hate Americans just like Americans hated Japanese and Gemans during the second world war

 

[Dogger807]

This is a debate over semantics? Your father has a very valid point even if the wording was ambiguous in your view.