People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:23 am UTC

I don't see how my definition of "true" as "verified through valid logic and observation" is "bloody stupid". It's essentially the same as "What is consistent with reality (at least, as far as reality can actually be perceived)."
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:00 am UTC

Because you have the 'valid logic and observation' in there. Then when we get you to define those things, you put in something along the lines of 'reasoning which gets us to the truth'. Both of those lead back to the other.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:49 am UTC

I'm well aware of that. So it doesn't make much sense that you'd disagree with a tautology. Valid logic is, as far as I know, defined as logic that, when given true premises, leads to true conclusions.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:24 am UTC

If it's tautological, what was the point of even stating it to begin with? Tautologies contribute nothing to a discussion.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.


This will become part of my signature.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Zamfir » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:If it's tautological, what was the point of even stating it to begin with? Tautologies contribute nothing to a discussion.
I wouldn't go that far. Formal logic exists because it can be surprisingly hard to figure out tautological truths, so in complicated arguments it can be useful to point out a tautological conclusion. Arguably, any mathematical proof is a tautology. But of course, this case doesn't have a complicated logical structure.

Sourmilk, you're playing a typical 2-step deception (perhaps unintentionally). When you are pressed, you define concepts of "valid" and "truth" totally in terms of each other. But when the pressure reduces, you start using them again in their ordinary sense.

After all, if 'truth" was only "that which can derived from valid reasoning", and "valid reasoning" was only "reasoning that produces the truth", then why would we care about "truth"? We care about truth because it also implies lots of other things, that are mostly good and that are not captured in such definitions.

Now, we could accept 'truth' in its normal definition, and keep the tautology through the definition of 'valid'. But if you define 'valid reasoning' that way, how do we recognize it in practice? You would first have to know if the conclusion was truthful (through some other process), before you could start to consider if a reasoning was valid. It would make "valid reasoning" a fairly pointless concept.

Here's the thing: we all know that we once we leave the discussion of definitions, you will go back to using "valid" and "reasoning" and "logic" in a different way. You'll just use them for whatever processes of argument that you like. You claim for example that using science is valid reasoning, even though science often leads to conclusions that later turn out to be wrong.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:38 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Here's the thing: we all know that we once we leave the discussion of definitions, you will go back to using "valid" and "reasoning" and "logic" in a different way. You'll just use them for whatever processes of argument that you like. You claim for example that using science is valid reasoning, even though science often leads to conclusions that later turn out to be wrong.
I think this should be emphasised for why so many people are arguing with you, sourmilk. You need to be able to realise that you can get to wrong conclusions from correct observations and correct logic - this is generally due to incomplete information about the problem, and sometimes people don't even realise that they're missing information. Therefore it is important to remember that just because something works logically and the observation has been shown to occur, the conclusion that you reach could still be wrong, often because you're missing something, even if you're not aware of missing something in any way. Then you need people who are willing to try and think outside the box as it were, to see if there's anything at all that you're missing, which could then lead people to a new conclusion - a sort of paradigm shift.

eg
correct observation - a pathway thought only to be found in bacteria and some plants is found within the malaria genome
correct observation 2 - a drug known to target one of these enzymes in bacteria is shown to decrease the growth of blood stage malaria
logical step - this drug is therefore working on this enzyme to stop blood stage malaria growth
incorrect conclusion - drugs that target the enzyme (as well as drugs working at other parts of the pathway) even better should be able to decrease the growth of malaria even more

why is this conclusion incorrect? No one realised for over 5 years why they were going down the wrong route, until 2 labs showed simultaneously that 1) the enzyme isn't expressed in blood stage malaria and 2) malaria without the enzyme still showed decreased growth, so it must have been working on something else (which they haven't found yet). The enzyme is actually expressed in the liver stage parasite, but no one really noticed before because it's a lot harder to experiment on the liver stage parasites than the blood stage, and the blood stage is thought ot be more useful for malaria treatment, as that's what causes symptoms.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:31 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:If it's tautological, what was the point of even stating it to begin with? Tautologies contribute nothing to a discussion.

Because of the second part of my statement. That, seeing as its tautological, it's unfortunate that people try to achieve the truth through means that don't, by definition, lead to it.

Zamfir, I didn't just say valid logic, I said valid logic and observation.

Angua, that's not valid logic, that's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

No it isn't. The drug did cause the decrease in growth, just not the way they thought it did. It would only be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if the malaria parasite had just happened to stop growing after the drug was added for entirely different reasons.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby induction » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

sourmilk wrote:Angua, that's not valid logic, that's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


No, it's called inductive logic, and it's how science actually gets done.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Shro » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Please read Jonah Lehrer's How We Decide. Or anything by him really. And then you can wonder how a man can be so smart *and* handsome.

In it he talks about emotions and reason and why both are very important aspects of decision making. I don't have the book handy, so don't quote me on any of this, but there's a case study that he talks about where the emotional centers of someone's brain is damaged and all they have left to work with is reason and rationality and they end up unable to make ANY decision. The pro and con list just got longer and more detailed while the decision remains undecided.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:45 pm UTC

Angua wrote:It would only be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if the malaria parasite had just happened to stop growing after the drug was added for entirely different reasons.

You're saying it wouldn't have been a fallacy if it had turned out to lead to the right conclusion?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Angua wrote:It would only be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if the malaria parasite had just happened to stop growing after the drug was added for entirely different reasons.

You're saying it wouldn't have been a fallacy if it had turned out to lead to the right conclusion?

If I'm reading understanding it right, it would have been that particular fallacy if the bacteria growth was unrelated to the introduction of the enzyme. The reduction in bacteria growth was due to the enzyme, but the specific mechanism believed to be behind the growth retardation was different from what they believed it to be.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

No, I mean that the definition of the fallacy seems to be automatically assuming (without supporting evidence) two things are connected because they're temporally related, when in fact they aren't. There were plenty of other things showing the fact that the two were related to each other, and plausible mechanisms of action. It just ended up being a different way than thought, though logically it would have made sense for it to be working the way that people thought it was.

Of course, if it is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, then I don't see how anyone is going to manage to do any sort of science without falling to that, and sourmilk wanting to find truth based on making observations and following logical procedures is never going to work.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby philsov » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
P1: Sexual encounters between men are statistically much more likely to result in one partner contracting HIV than other sexual encounters. (factual observation)
P2: Married couples are statistically much more likely to engage in sexual encounters than random pairings of two people. (factual observation)
P3: Situations that increase the odds of contraction of HIV are bad for public health. (factual observation)
P4: The government should prohibit things that are bad for public health. (axiom)

[...]


Now find me a way to rebut this argument without contradicting the premises with your own premises.


Maybe this? They don't directly contradict but rather add to.

P2.3 - Married couples are statistically much less likely to engage in sexual encounters with additional partners (factual observation)
P2.6 - Sexual encounters with multiple partners increases risk of STDs/HIV (factual observation)

The hanging point is factually finding on whether the frequency or the number of partners is worse for HIV infection and then going from there. Which... is cumbersome because of how well they synergize. These net premises can go one of two ways if the multiple partners outweights the frequency:

Therefore, government should ban all sexual intercourse except between two, consenting monogomous to-be-ex-virgins, who are now only legally able to have sex with each other. [Really this was also true with the original 4, but it's also logically sound]

or

Government should promote same-sex monogamy to reduce the total number of HIV cases which increases public health.
Last edited by philsov on Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Greyarcher » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:27 pm UTC

Angua wrote:No, I mean that the definition of the fallacy seems to be automatically assuming (without supporting evidence) two things are connected because they're temporally related, when in fact they aren't. There were plenty of other things showing the fact that the two were related to each other, and plausible mechanisms of action. It just ended up being a different way than thought, though logically it would have made sense for it to be working the way that people thought it was.

Of course, if it is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, then I don't see how anyone is going to manage to do any sort of science without falling to that, and sourmilk wanting to find truth based on making observations and following logical procedures is never going to work.
We could see it as a correlation/causation fallacy. But I don't think it would be useful. The problem here isn't the inference itself--it's the completeness of our information.

We find out the incompleteness when our follow-up work finds that things aren't working out how we'd expect. This is good process. We could try and fit a fallacy criticism in there, but it doesn't seem to add anything.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:32 pm UTC

Well yeah, we do need evidence to make conclusions, hence the necessity of observation. Look, I'm pretty sure we agree here except that we're getting hung up on terminology.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Well yeah, we do need evidence to make conclusions, hence the necessity of observation. Look, I'm pretty sure we agree here except that we're getting hung up on terminology.

When you're dealing with the basics of reason, the terminology is immensely important.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

The thing is, I'm not trying to deal with the basics of reason.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Panonadin
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Panonadin » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:58 pm UTC

induction wrote:
sourmilk wrote:Angua, that's not valid logic, that's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


No, it's called inductive logic, and it's how science actually gets done.


Rather than talk in circles with spoileddairy I figured I would point out that you said inductive logic and your name is induction and that my friends, is funny.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby induction » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Panonadin wrote:Rather than talk in circles with spoileddairy I figured I would point out that you said inductive logic and your name is induction and that my friends, is funny.


Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:22 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:The thing is, I'm not trying to deal with the basics of reason.

I thought that's what the whole argument was about. Maybe you didn't try to deal with it, because it seems obvious to you, but I was under the opinion that the obviousness stems from having preset notions about the terminology, which becomes important when dealing with fundamentals. Maybe I got lost somewhere myself; it happens.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The thing is, I'm not trying to deal with the basics of reason.

I thought that's what the whole argument was about. Maybe you didn't try to deal with it, because it seems obvious to you, but I was under the opinion that the obviousness stems from having preset notions about the terminology, which becomes important when dealing with fundamentals. Maybe I got lost somewhere myself; it happens.


When making the statement "Reason > Emotion" it's rather difficult to make the argument without getting in to the basics of reason and trying to disentangle the underlying nature of rational thought processes from emotional thought processes.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Shro » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

Jonah Lehrer and youtube goodness
He talks about the guy who lost the ability to experience emotion.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

Shro wrote:In it he talks about emotions and reason and why both are very important aspects of decision making.
To paraphrase some author I don't remember, "Without reason we have no way to achieve justice, but without emotion we have no reason to try."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:53 pm UTC

Emotion is an important component of decision-making in that the effect on emotions should be considered in our decisions, but not in that our emotions should dictate our decisions. We should make decisions logically to benefit us emotionally.

Let's simplify this. Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Not until you stop using your circular definitions for both "reason" and "truth".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:59 pm UTC

As far as I know, they're defined by each other. What definition do you want to use?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:02 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Emotion is an important component of decision-making in that the effect on emotions should be considered in our decisions, but not in that our emotions should dictate our decisions. We should make decisions logically to benefit us emotionally.

Let's simplify this. Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?


Sourmilk, your simplification is the topic of entire college-level philosophy and ethics courses. People who do nothing but hash this shit out with a great deal more rigor than we assholes on the internet don't agree on the topic.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Griffin » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?

Within a given framework, yes, but we cannot build those frameworks off logic alone.

Everything is true, depending on context.

Give me a statement, any statement, that is trivially true, and I will explain why it's wrong. Give me any statement that is trivially false, and I will explain why it's true.

And none of that matters, because most of us do not value Truth in the slightest. We value things being "true" because true is often "useful", in a whole variety of ways.


Example: I was dreaming the other night. Applications of reason to attempt to delay my inevitable, gory demise accomplished nothing. Because the context was not reasonable. Reordering my perception, however, and calling emotion to my aide, I was able to maintain the framework while avoiding the demise, because the demise was precipitated by my application of reason and denial of emotion to begin with. Yes, it's just a dream. But at the very least it's evidence, strong evidence, that your statements are not True, but merely true*.

*within a given context.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

gametaku
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:21 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby gametaku » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:10 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:
Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?

Within a given framework, yes, but we cannot build those frameworks off logic alone.

Everything is true, depending on context.

Give me a statement, any statement, that is trivially true, and I will explain why it's wrong. Give me any statement that is trivially false, and I will explain why it's true.


I'll bite, here is my true statement:

Given a statement that is trivially true, Griffin will prove it false.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Zcorp » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:20 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Within a given framework, yes, but we cannot build those frameworks off logic alone.

Everything is true, depending on context.

Give me a statement, any statement, that is trivially true, and I will explain why it's wrong. Give me any statement that is trivially false, and I will explain why it's true.

And none of that matters, because most of us do not value Truth in the slightest. We value things being "true" because true is often "useful", in a whole variety of ways.


Example: I was dreaming the other night. Applications of reason to attempt to delay my inevitable, gory demise accomplished nothing. Because the context was not reasonable. Reordering my perception, however, and calling emotion to my aide, I was able to maintain the framework while avoiding the demise, because the demise was precipitated by my application of reason and denial of emotion to begin with. Yes, it's just a dream. But at the very least it's evidence, strong evidence, that your statements are not True, but merely true*.

*within a given context.

Huh? You stating meaningless and thoughtless things while pretending there is depth.
I currently have 5 digits on each hand, this is true. This is Truth. Tell me in which 'context' this is not true.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:26 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:Huh? You stating meaningless and thoughtless things while pretending there is depth.
I currently have 5 digits on each hand, this is true. This is Truth. Tell me in which 'context' this is not true.

Ahh, you just fixed it :) I was about to say that in many languages the word for 'finger' and 'toe' are the same and your statement would be false in them. Anyway, the problem would come if you tell me this and I have a different definition of some word in your sentence- I don't consider the thumb to be a digit for example.

P.S.
I'll bite, here is my true statement:

Given a statement that is trivially true, Griffin will prove it false.
You need a self-referential statement to run into a paradox. Your statement can be proven false by just telling Griffin a trivially true statement and having him not prove it false.
'If this statement is true Griffin will prove it is false, otherwise he will prove it is true.' should work.

P.P.S
Sourmilk, even limiting yourself to the much simpler* universe of mathematics you need to start out with a set of axioms. It is impossible to prove anything without making some unsupported assumption first. And if you think all mathematicians agree exactly which axioms are reasonable and which aren't, you should read up on the axiom of choice- making that assumption lets you prove things that seem false; not making it makes things that seem right impossible to prove or disprove. Two perfect logicians, one accepting the axiom of choice, another not accepting it, would reach drastically different conclusions about certain problems. It's also proven that the first 8 ZF axioms cannot prove or disprove the axiom of choice (or its equivalent statements).

* Simpler for the purposes of applying logic and deriving commonly agreed upon truths.
Last edited by maybeagnostic on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:43 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:34 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:- I don't consider the thumb to be a digit for example.


It's analog.

(I stayed up late playing ME3 last night, and my work day is almost done. I'm tired and this thought amused me.)
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:42 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Emotion is an important component of decision-making in that the effect on emotions should be considered in our decisions, but not in that our emotions should dictate our decisions. We should make decisions logically to benefit us emotionally.

Let's simplify this. Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?


Sourmilk, your simplification is the topic of entire college-level philosophy and ethics courses. People who do nothing but hash this shit out with a great deal more rigor than we assholes on the internet don't agree on the topic.


Really? I'm pretty sure we came to a consensus about this by the time we started using science.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:03 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:As far as I know, they're defined by each other.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is that as far as you know isn't very far at all, especially where the rigors of formal logic are concerned.

For one thing, if you merely step back and acknowledge, along with all of us who have actually studied this stuff, that logic is merely truth-preserving rather than truth-generating, that would be a start. Then you'd be able to define "truth" as that quality of a proposition which is preserved by the application of "logic", while "logic" is a certain formal procedure. That might not be enough to build up all the rest of your claims, but it at least has the benefit of not being circular.

But as repeatedly pointed out to you already so I'm not sure why I think doing so yet again will accomplish anything, defining "truth" as "that which is arrived at by the application of proper logic to true premises" and "logic" as "that process which when applied to true premises results in true conclusions" is entirely useless and also not really successful in encapsulating what everyone actually means when they use those words. (Including yourself, since as has *also* already been pointed out to you, you're perfectly content to drop immediately back into an informal and casual sense of both words whenever it suits you, while at the same time returning to the circular definitions whenever you're pressed on it.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:14 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Dauric wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Emotion is an important component of decision-making in that the effect on emotions should be considered in our decisions, but not in that our emotions should dictate our decisions. We should make decisions logically to benefit us emotionally.

Let's simplify this. Can we agree that reason and it's application is better than emotions for the purposes of determining truth?


Sourmilk, your simplification is the topic of entire college-level philosophy and ethics courses. People who do nothing but hash this shit out with a great deal more rigor than we assholes on the internet don't agree on the topic.


Really? I'm pretty sure we came to a consensus about this by the time we started using science.


Not. Even. Close.

I point you to this post:
Shro wrote:Jonah Lehrer and youtube goodness
He talks about the guy who lost the ability to experience emotion.

He gets stuck in an infinite loop trying to ascertain perfect information (which is arguably impossible) and never reaches the emotional response that breaks the cycle, where making a decision without perfect information (Investing is the classic example) requires an emotional component to the decision.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby Shivahn » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:I point you to this post:
Shro wrote:Jonah Lehrer and youtube goodness
He talks about the guy who lost the ability to experience emotion.

He gets stuck in an infinite loop trying to ascertain perfect information (which is arguably impossible) and never reaches the emotional response that breaks the cycle, where making a decision without perfect information (Investing is the classic example) requires an emotional component to the decision.

Oh god that sounds like me.

I need to check that out when I'm not at work.

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby userxp » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Not until you stop using your circular definitions for both "reason" and "truth".

sourmìlk wrote:As far as I know, they're defined by each other. What definition do you want to use?


Can I join this party too? Let's see:

"truth": that which corresponds with the real state of the universe. Quoting Tarski: "The snow is white" is true if and only if the snow is white.
"reason": logical/mathematical methods which allows us to derive further truths from truths we know (even if only in a probabilistic way).

Also let me quote Eliezer Yudkowski's "The Simple Truth" on that:

Eliezer wrote:Someone says to you: “My miracle snake oil can rid you of lung cancer in just three weeks.” You reply: “Didn’t a clinical study show this claim to be untrue?” The one returns: “This notion of ‘truth’ is quite naive; what do you mean by ‘true’?”

Many people, so questioned, don’t know how to answer in exquisitely rigorous detail. Nonetheless they would not be wise to abandon the concept of ‘truth’. There was a time when no one knew the equations of gravity in exquisitely rigorous detail, yet if you walked off a cliff, you would fall.

Often I have seen – especially on Internet mailing lists – that amidst other conversation, someone says “X is true”, and then an argument breaks out over the use of the word ‘true’. This essay is not meant as an encyclopedic reference for that argument. Rather, I hope the arguers will read this essay, and then go back to whatever they were discussing before someone questioned the nature of truth.

In this essay I pose questions. If you see what seems like a really obvious answer, it’s probably the answer I intend. The obvious choice isn’t always the best choice, but sometimes, by golly, it is. I don’t stop looking as soon I find an obvious answer, but if I go on looking, and the obvious-seeming answer still seems obvious, I don’t feel guilty about keeping it. Oh, sure, everyone thinks two plus two is four, everyone says two plus two is four, and in the mere mundane drudgery of everyday life everyone behaves as if two plus two is four, but what does two plus two really, ultimately equal? As near as I can figure, four. It’s still four even if I intone the question in a solemn, portentous tone of voice. Too simple, you say? Maybe, on this occasion, life doesn’t need to be complicated. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: People choose emotions over reason, no one is surprised

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:01 am UTC

usexp, I'm cool with those definitions. So, given that reason, by definition (at least, by userxp's definition) leads to truth, it is unfortunate that people use emotions to make decisions about what the truth is rather than logic.

Dauric, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying there shouldn't be emotion in decision making, I'm saying there shouldn't be emotion in determining the truth. That's entirely to the realm of reason and impartial observation. The scientific method, as far as I know, does not leave room for conclusions based on their emotional implications.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 20 guests