anyone else a fan of dialectic reasoning and formal logic?
I think it's an important tool in an open debate, because it quickly allows you to establish the foundation of your opponents argument
by seperating their initial claims, and understanding heir mode of reasoning you an directly attack the basis of their arguments, and the method of their logic
Yes, and no. Somewhere in between.
>>72196857
get out of here you relativist scum
Formal logic applies only to formal systems. Human language isn't a formal system.
People on her do not think before they talk.
Get the fuck out of her with this nigger shit.
still trying to work out how probability can be factored into this kind of reasoning
can this kind of reasoning simply not be used where things are not black and white
can you in some cases use a premise with a singular 90% certainty, and end up with a conclusion that is 90% valid?
such question seem vital to real world and informal debate
>>72196777
I usually just call the other person a nigger. That seems to work well.
>>72196777
Except that literally no one is convinced of anything by purely the logical reasoning behind a viewpoint or argument, particularly if it is in opposition to their stated beliefs.
Doesn't matter how rational you are. It's a flaw of human understanding and ability.
The surest way to change someones opinion is to target their emotions and elicit either empathy or fear.
>>72196777
>of reasoning you an directly attack the
>>72197272
>>72197490
the language isn't, but the reasoning is
for instance if you say "penguins are stupid birds, because all flightless birds are stupid"
one could immediately identify that as a simple case of circular logic eg. begging the question
and you would know that the correct response would be
"what kinds of flightless birds are stupid?"
not
"penguins arn't stupid"
"what other kinds of flighless birds are stupid"
or
"what makes penguins flightless"
the first response would tempt the claimant to say "penguins"
at which point anyone who had not noticed the initial circular logic would surely do so, and the notion would be laughed off
maybe not a good example. but my point is that you apply dialectics to an argument to work out where to strike at it, then you phrase that attack in the common tongue
>>72196777
Honestly man after majoring in PoliSci im done with all that philosophical bullshit.
I was so enchanted with platos republic, marcus aurelius, all those dudes, but then I graduated and realized nobody gives a shit about tedious, theoretical, pontificating 20 page research papers.
Let it go. Don't waste your time arguing with fucking retards.
>>72198141
I was literally reading marcus aureilias yesterday
however I do not expect to sway people with dialectics, or intend to produce research papers
I am not a basement dweller, and I intend to put such knowledge to practical use in local pollitics
instead of boxing with shadows and attacking trivial assumptions I want to make successfull attacks on the core assumptions of my pollitical aversaries in a way that stays in the mind of the common man, so that every time my adversary opens their mouth attention is perpetually drawn to their underlying beliefs
I hope that by doing this, their daily rephrasing and repetition will wear thin with the public because they fail to address the issue that I attack centrally, or spend all their time trying to defend their core beliefs instead of simply having them accepted
