Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?

[sassafras]

I doubt that. It's just that failures of sarcasm are far more noticeable.

Possibly.

 

[Bored Now]

Now we're somewhat in agreement... although adults can enjoy sarcasm from time to time, overuse is definitely annoying. Ever had that co-worker that was perpetually rolling his eyes and saying "...Yeah, and I'm the bonny Queen of England"? Sets the teeth on edge, it does.

But execution in any sort of communication is most definitely key, online or offline.

My God, I know THAT person. My overly sarcastic person girl was named Adrienne. I remember I said something silly and jokey about sucking at something because I was so good at something else etc.

 

[Duty]

Good morning. This above.
Also,
If it is a square, then it is a rectangle < - true by definition
If it is not a square, then it is not a rectangle < - not true by definition

For it to be a rule of logic, it has to work in all cases, not just some.

The form:
If x, then y does not imply the form:
If not x, then not y.

"Imply" means it doesn't force the second one to be true. Logic is about deduction: what things must be true if your original statement is correct. A rule of logic has to work in all cases of that form in order to force truth in the way it does.


So just because "If x, then not y" does work in some case or another, like with square/rectangle, does not mean it is a rule of logic. It has to work in all cases for it to be a rule of logic.


For example:
"If x, then y" implies "If not y, then not x." There is no counterexample and this works in all cases. "If it is an orange, then it is a fruit" must mean that "If it is not a fruit, then it can't be an orange."



So this is a false counterexample, basic Aristotilian syllogistic logic holds.

 

[Solar Empath]

For it to be a rule of logic, it has to work in all cases, not just some.

The form:
If x, then y does not imply the form:
If not x, then not y.

"Imply" means it doesn't force the second one to be true. Logic is about deduction: what things must be true if your original statement is correct. A rule of logic has to work in all cases of that form in order to force truth in the way it does.


So just because "If x, then not y" does work in some case or another, like with square/rectangle, does not mean it is a rule of logic. It has to work in all cases for it to be a rule of logic.


For example:
"If x, then y" implies "If not y, then not x." There is no counterexample and this works in all cases. "If it is an orange, then it is a fruit" must mean that "If it is not a fruit, then it can't be an orange."



So this is a false counterexample, basic Aristotilian syllogistic logic holds.

So are you saying that all squares are not rectangles, or that a non rectangle may still be a square. Not sure where my error is unless it's a terminology one.

 

[Duty]

So are you saying that all squares are not rectangles, or that a non rectangle may still be a square. Not sure where my error is unless it's a terminology one.

I'm out of patience. This stuff is really not difficult to understand.

Wyst's "logic" was that a statement of "If x, then y" would automatically make "If not x, then not y" true. This is false.

"If it is a square, then it is a rectangle" is true, but it does not mean that "if it is not a square, then it is not a rectangle" because rectangles are not always squares.

Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

if you're still confused.


So, his "counterexample" is false and not really a counterexample. It is true that "If something thinks, then it must exist." Further, in your personal attempt to disprove "I think, therefore I am," you must think in order to attempt to disprove it. So, the act of thinking means you think, and if you think, then you exist, making "I think, therefore I am" an undeniable objective fact, and proof that there is objective truth in the world.


If you don't understand after that, then you're on your own.

 

[just me]

I am, and I do not have to think.

 

[Solar Empath]

I'm out of patience. This stuff is really not difficult to understand.

...[SNIP]...


So, his "counterexample" is false and not really a counterexample. It is true that "If something thinks, then it must exist." Further, in your personal attempt to disprove "I think, therefore I am," you must think in order to attempt to disprove it. So, the act of thinking means you think, and if you think, then you exist, making "I think, therefore I am" an undeniable objective fact, and proof that there is objective truth in the world.


If you don't understand after that, then you're on your own.

Okay then. I support the view of Cogito ergo sum. I think you completely misunderstood what I was trying to support.

All squares are rectangles is logically true. I was trying to use it as a further example to show Moxie what we were saying.

But hey, thanks for the pissy attitude. I won't forget it.

EDIT again: in fact, I was outlining the very fallacy you linked:

If it is a square, then it is a rectangle < - true by definition
If it is not a square, then it is not a rectangle < - not true by definition

The second part was making the point that it isn't a test you can apply to others because you can't prove they are thinking deductively. You could be insane or under the control of a demon

Cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) isn't proof of any thinking being's existence. It is proof to the thinker (you) that the thinker exists and is not just a part of some evil demon's imagination. It is the only thing that by default cannot be doubted in methodological skepticism.