haha now were getting somewhere. but first, you say math has nothing to do with logic? but you refuse to back it up? i just want to make sure. so.. i will ask you. find the sum of one plus one please. how did you do it wuks? if you dont want to discuss it you dont have to.
but that still doent change the fact that logic and math go hand in hand. Prove me wrong and i will concede.
fyi, axioms are not used in modern math.

ok, so you think its impossible for something to exist and not exist at the same time?

Have you ever heard of quantum physics? Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics....

again, when you attempt to define something and call it absolute, you place rigid parameters around yourself, you trap your self.


logic is not absolute. something can be illogical and still be true
(unless your ready to rewrite quantum physics)

in 300 AD the thought of a phone was illogical.

perception and observation are crucial to logic. as soon as you observe something you influence the physical process taking place.
Chaos theory in other words. Variables variables variables. Everything wux, everything has variables.

anyways, logic can not exist in our reality (i hesitate to use that word exist) with out perception and observation.

according to superstring theory, there ar 10 + 1 dimensions, each with its own set of rules. so...can you exist and not exsist? yes, according to quantum you can.
can something be illogicl and true? yes, quantum physics is.

wux, i appritiate your side, i really do. but quantum physics clearly opposes logic as we know it, its definatly not impossible.

to answer your question, no. a challege does not have to be aggresive at all. Is there a difference between assertive and aggresive?
again, theres two ways to do it
call me a bully if you like, but when i discuss, my goal is to achieve somethimg, some knowledge or new perspective. Pleaes explaine to me how you can possibly say im a bully.
You havee a nice philosophical outlook that i respect, but philosphy is only one part of the bigger picture. this is a matter of logic. How can we get the best result out of this discussion? How can we achieve optimum efficency?
problem solving, thats all it is. Well, if you want to get anywhere anyways.

why are you having this discussion with me? Im doing because i think its good to challenge my ideas.

second, its a sad day when you can no longer expect people to think for themselves, and only expect them to do the bare minimum.
sad. I love people at there best, and i expect someone who makes a statment or an argument to be at his best.
if thoses are standards you accept, so be it.
Socrates called people who had those same standards hatters of reason.

conviction.

oh i understand what you ment, but in my perspective an attack is an attack. Generaly people attatch a value to their ideas (ever argue with a southrn babtist?)
But regaurdless, aggresion is aggresion.
an attack is an act of violence, verbaly or phisicaly. Dont you think its possible to challange without attacking?
Or mabey were just having a communication problem, because iv never got the impression youv attacked me or my ideas, just challenged and questioned them which is perfectly ok.
who knows.

wux, ps
have you ever heard of logistics?
how would you define logistics?

im not sure how i missed this one. an attack is an act of aggresion.
you can disagree with someone without being aggresive. im doing it right now. i disagree, but your prior post and responses to my arguments have been profesional and polite, there for i respect your ideas, i attatch to the a value, and take them in to consderation.
if you were being rude, i would either not respond or try only to attack you back and prove you wrong.
my point is if you continue to act as you have been, i think well get somewhere, or adleast i will. its abou finding the truth.
but if im attacked, my only concern is in defending myself.
ones progresive and one not.

jasonpfaff...all I said was that "logic rules out the illogical" ...it not mandatory to use logic to prove that something is untrue, but logic can be use to display that the proof or the rationality doesn't exist to claim that the something is true


sure, it can also be used the other way.
so.. i agree with you in that case.
you have a very refreshing view of things.

it has every thing to do with logic wux.
give me a math problem in which you dont use a logical formula, system or sequence to either prove or disprove. if you can, you will be the first.
and what are you sorry for wux?

noproblem wux i dont take offence. your arguments make sence and i think ill end up learning something, so it falls under "progresive discusion" as i mentioned earlier.


saying something exists and doesnt at the same time sounds alot like quantum to me.

there are plenty of illogical things that exist and are true wux.
as far as existence look at the majority of the people you meet. people are not logical creatures, they are passonate and emotional. (im making a generalization sure, but think about it, what lawyer wins? the logical one, or the persuasive one? its a sad but true fact.)
as far as it being true, heres what i ment. just becuse its not true, doesnt make it false. that pretty self explanitory i believe. science for example. or better yet, think 300 ad, could thay have even imagined some of the technology we have today? we didnt have space stations and cell phones back than. in that context, a practicle machine that could be used to take us into space was illogical. well...look how that turned out.

defining things as only true or false leaves little room for creativity, inductive thought or reasoning. and just like anything deductive, it can be good, but realize your trapping yourself in your conclusion. the parameters you set for yourself wux are not flexible. there strong sure, but theyl brake eventuly.

moving on. forgive me for saying we and not specifying. we as in any one who knows basic math.
1+1=2
the absolute value of one
plus the absolute value of one
equals two

how does that play into logic? the inference is valid ( x + x = x )
the premises are true (if you have one thing, and you add one more thing, you will have two things)
there for the equation is correct (valid and true)

i used logic to find the answer to a math problem, there for logic can be used to prove as well as disprove.

substantiated?


"But to oppose logic means to be impossible."
ever heard of invention?

mabey your right but we still used logic to find 1 + 1 = 2
we used logic to find a truth

fucnches were leaning to science vs philosophy here. my point is its valid or its not. its logical or its not. but just because its not logical doesnt make it untrue.... just not proven or observed.

logic rules out the illogical...
so when i say 'logicaly speaking", or "hes logical" or even "use logic and reason" im saying "use logic, logicaly to rule out the illogical?
i understand how one might say logic is used to find invalids, or to disprove something, but thats only one part of it.

IE 1 + 1 = 2, logicaly, one plus one is two.
1 + 1 = 3 according to logic, this is invalid

so we use logic to prove the first example (premises are true and inference is valid)
we also used logic to disprove the second.

logic is math. it all comes down to the numbers. it can be used to disprove, or to prove. its purly deductive.

i agree ideas should be challenged. but theres a way to do it. if person A attacks person B , person A better have a valid argument.
ad least if he or she wants to be taken seriously.

funny story about the calf and the wheel barrel actuly

funny story about the calf and the wheel barrel actuly

good ponit, but i dont discuss or even argue to be proven right, i do it to either seek the truth, (by POE if you think logic doesnt prove, only disproves) to simply exchange ideas, or to find a solution to a problem. i may be right or wrong in the process, but if i can avoid badgering or hits bellow the belt(adhominem...) than ill get alot further i think.

it also depends on intentions. I participate in this thread for the three reasons i stated above, some people participate purly to debate
(and every good lawyer knows, pathos, a good amount of persuasion, as well as intentional falacies are often, mabey even in most cases, employed to 'win')
some folks are bored, some need to establish the dominance or self control they lack in their real lives for what ever reason.

what ever the case, it all comes down to ballance. you can prove your point without being excessive, or to pasive and giving. having an open mind doesnt mean dont attatch any value to any thing, youl never get anywhere with anything. it means look at every thing and be open to knw ideas. logic is great, but it to must be ballanced with a certain amount of creative/inductive reasoning.
its all a matter of ballance.

forgive my lack of structure, (im a little drunk)

Somebody buy him a beer!

im sorry, iv been busy job searching. i started this thread beacuse i wanted to see how many people would play nice in a thread that ephasized producive thinking and arguing, and denounced bulies...
(for lack of a better word)
and it apears to be working,
I really have no issue with Jane. I took a hipocriical aprouch in responding to her first post in this thread to show her how it feels and how counter productive it is.
i dont like shooting people down, i dont know why some people do.
all in all Janes has some great ideas, and a very interesting perspective, and me bickering with her gets either of us nowhere.
i do apologize for the hipocracy.

ok, all conflict aside, i have a question about the whole 'there are no absolutes' deal. its probably been asked before so mabey someone could help me catch up, but math is an absolute correct? (im not sure exactly, but i would imagine it is)
so if math is absolute then there are absolutes? or adleast one?
im not arguing for or against i just need clarification.
thx

undeveloped? ha so i guess that makes you developed? if thats the case im glad im undeveloped. (your right my emotions dont dictate my reason_

i cant take the heat? sais the the peron who is blocking my sorry a$$ off for good.

COME ON JANE I WAS BEING SARCASIC! PLEASE DONT MISINTERPRETE MY SARCASM AS MEAN OR RUDE..... ok but seriously, do we understand now.
i do apologize for resorting to 'sarcasm' as you call it honestly, i just wanted to see how you held up to the same treatment iv seen you give others including myself. it gets us nowhere.
so if you want, please take my apology, it wont happen again. (sarcasm is not in character for me)

well said

my point wasnt to prove you wrong, (that was collateral damage) i just want you to think about it. dont excuse yourselve, dont justify your self, think objectivly.
as for me, your right i shouldnt take sarcasm so personaly. but id rather talk and discuss with you rather than have to ignore you. thats no fun.
im not going to quote you. (reference foozball, "how do you beat him? you stop his game)
based on your email, you know you cant deny it, so you look for ways around it( ie i can think of ad least two "your wrongs", and one "im right" but that doesnt meet your requirements does it? you want two. suffice to say its more about the attitude you portray (that supperior attitude i was talking about in the op)

ps- it doesnt matter what you ment jane, it matters how they took it. your " simple sarcasm" is misinterprited because you didnt deliver properly. (assuming if hat was the true issue to begine with..im just sayin)