And now we don our Lewis Caroll

I am obsessed with Lewis Caroll, I am a big fan of his and as such I think I would like to end my blog with an argument that I discovered that was written by the man himself.

P1. Babies are illogical

P2.Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile

P3 .Illogical persons are despised.

C. Babies cannot manage crocodiles.

This might seem a bit confusing, but if we switch up the premises, it might make a bit more sense:

P1. Babies are illogical.

P2. Illogical persons are despised.

P3. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.

C. Babies cannot manage crocodiles.

How about someone try to figure out the conclusion to this one also posed by Caroll:

1. No ducks waltz
2. No officers ever decline to waltz
3. All my poultry are ducks

What is the conclusion to this?

Why?

What is wrong with these arguments made by a christian online encyclopedia?

* Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of God. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use presuppositional apologetics to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning. 

* Muslims also use circular logic to defend the Qur'an. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of Allah, that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. This is completely different from why the Bible is true. 

* Evolutionists will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by radiometric dating; then state that it is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the strata in which it was found; additionally because the radiometric dating methods agree with each other, and date correctly materials which were historically dated by humans.

-source: Fstdt

1. Begging the Question: They start off with the assumptions that atheists, muslims, and evolutionists all start off with the assumption that God isn't real, or Allah is real when they make argukuments. This is false.
2. Ad hominem (abusive

Anything else?

Professional in front, Party in back.

So, I am attempting to try and grow out my hair long, but in order to do that, I unfortunately must go through that awkward mullet stage before I get it long and flowing. So, while I was talking about mullets with my hairdresser, she told me that mullets were slowly making a comeback in the fashion world. Her logic went as follows:

P1: I give more of my customers mullets.
P2: The number of people with mullets is increasing
C: Mullets must be making a comeback in the fashion world.

I happen to find this argument weak because the conclusion does not put forward strong evidence that mullets are indeed a rising fashion trend. What do you think?

To Court!

(Thanks http://www.smbc-comics.com for providing me with such humorous philosophical insights)

The Paradox of the court that is described in this rather humorous comic is a wonderful example of a seemingly unsolvable logical paradox. Protagoras and Eutharus both seem to have rational and logical points.

Protagoras's argument goes as:

P1: Eutharus owes me money if we wins a case

P2: Eutharus will owe me money if I sue him and win the case.

C: No matter what, Eutharus will owe me money

However, Eutharus's argument is as follows:

P1: Pythagoras says that until I win a case, I don't owe him money.

P2: If Pythagoras takes me to court for money and I win, I don't have to pay him because the court is on my side

P3: If I lose said court case, I have not won any case, so I don't have to pay Pythagoras any money.

C: I don't have to pay Pythagoras anything

Now, there is a solution to this paradox, but I will not say. Instead, try to figure it out yourselves.

Logic of Time Travel.

         Time travel is a very difficult concept to grasp and is prevalent in many fantasy and sci-fi novels. Yet there is much more logical problems and paradoxes than other controversial scientific theories. For example, if there was time travel, where are the time travelers? They should be around in the present day to accomplish whatever they need to do.
         There is also the issue of what happens when someone goes back in time to alter something? Take this argument:
P1: I punched Professor Silliman yesterday
P2: I used a time Machine to alter the past so that I did not punch Professor Silliman.
C: I did not punch professor Silliman.

This spawns many conflicts. If the conclusion is true, then the first premise, and consequently the second premise become untrue. It hurts my head.

Knowledge is Power.

Here is an 'argument' I remember hearing that I really like. I have taken some liberties to try and make it stronger.
P1: Reading educational books can lead to knowledge
P2: Knowledge leads to power
P2: Power leads to corruption
P3:Corruption is a crime
C: If you read educational books, you will be committing a crime.
Thus, I should no longer read my logic book, or else I might risk committing a crime.

Logic and Ethics

I love logic, but I feel that it is awfully hard to apply logic in the realm of morality. It seems like there is just fr too much emotional involvement in order for one to make a rational argument or decision. In addition to this, there are just too many facets of human nature that anyone can fashion an argument for any ethical belief which can be contradictory. Ex:

P1: People do not like it when they go hungry

P2: People possess empathy.

P3: People sometimes have an excess of food or money that they do not require.

C: People with an excess of food or money should donate it to the hungry.

OR

P1: Ownership of property is a cornerstone of living in a capitalistic society

P2: In a capitalistic society, a person may decide what to do with their own possessions to a legal extent.

C: People should not be obligated to give their resources to other people.

Contradiction.

I have been pondering over Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. It is one of the most well known axioms in logic and philosophy. I have been trying to think of a way to disprove this theory though and very few things come to mind. For it is impossible to have 'A' not equal 'A.' But then I started to think about the computers that were designed with quantum mechanics. Because some circuits in such a device could be both on and off at the same time, which was a clear contradiction. But the more I thought about it, I suddenly realized that since it did exist in reality, then it is indeed possible for something to be both on and off at the same time. In this manner, it would no longer be a contradiction, which would allow Aristotle's principle to still be intact.

The logic of the abnormal

So, this weekend, instead of starting immediately on my logic homework like a good student, I packed up my car and headed out to go volunteer at a special needs summer camp. While there however, I noticed that a lot of the kids there did not use the most rational of logical arguments. But then I realized that to these children, their arguments seemed completely rational and logical to themselves. Some things seemed so obvious to them that they even took it for granted that their illogical beliefs were correct. This got me thinking about how emotion plays a role in an argument.  

 Emotion plays a huge role about whether or not a person is willing to accept another argument. Many people like these kids accept and refuse different forms of arguments solely because they don't like what the argument is saying. So even though all rational and empirical evidence can point to one thing, people can still deny it with their own emotions. Some of the kids I worked with were like this. They held beliefs solely because they liked the ideas that they made up more than reality. I am sure people who claim to be rational do the exact same thing too.

Does this mean that logic and reasoning is weaker than one's own emotional power?

I don't even...

"According to the atheistic approach above, as far as I am concerned, he cannot say for sure that he knows that God does not exist, or he will be taken as a fool. So, he has no choice but to believe that God exists. If he knew for sure that God existed, he would not have to say that he believes in God. It stands the reason then, that atheists cannot be sure about anything or they will be taken by fools. In that case, he must believe that God exists, since he is not sure He does."

-FSTD

P1-An person will be taken as a fool if he believes god does not exist.

C1- An atheist must then accept god exists in order to avoid looking like a fool.

PP1- a believer in god would be secure enough to not have to express his beliefs.

[PP2-Since an atheist does not want to be taken to be a fool, he is unsure of his beliefs]

C2-An atheist must believe go exists since one is not sure that He does.

I occasionally stumble upon some quotes that make absolutely no sense. I have tried my hand at translating this persons argument to something intelligible. However, I don't think I have done it justice. If anyone would like to try their hand at it, be my guest because I would love to see what this man was even trying to say.

Does this mean we don't need to go to class anymore?

Over the Summer, I finally got to read a book that has long been on my reading list: Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol. It was a delightful read and the nonsensicalness of it I truly enjoyed. However, at the end of that story was another little story called What the Tortoise Said to Achilles (You can find the story here.). Lewis Carrol was not only an author, but a mathematician and a logician. This story was about a dialogue between the great hero Achilles and a tortoise who were in a race (This is a reference to Zeno's Paradox, found here if interested.). After Achilles won that race, The tortoise then proved to Achilles that the process of using logic actually involved an infinite number of assumptions that would make logic absolutely impossible. It gave me quite a headache when I read it. According to the internet, it also confounded many other philosophers as well. Throughout this logic course, I have often thought back to this story. What do my classmates make of it?

Fighting dirty

So, a while ago, while reading a particular philosopher, I came across a list of his that supposedly tells a person how to win an argument. I don't know if it is just me, but I think that this list isn't a list that helps someone win an argument through logic and reasoning, but through less honorable methods. Many of these arguments commit the informal fallacies that we discussed in the pamphlet, and these ways to win will make it so that you do not win by virtue of the argument, but through subtlety, deceit, and psychological warfare.

Unfortunately, I think that many people who engage in arguments and debates have the capacity to distinguish the difference between these two different kinds of victories. One is fulfilling and purposeful, the other, shallow and meaningless. When one is focused solely on winning, and not on exchanging knowledge and beliefs, the argument will become faulty.

Reasoning

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; If with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if the argue without reason (Which, in order to be consistent they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
-Ethan Allen
     This quote I found in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, which concerns the state of science in modern day society. In the book, he explains how science and scientific thought is being attacked by pseudoscience, new age metaphysics, and culture. In all, this book is his defense of scientific thinking and rational thought. The quote stood out to me especially because I am in a logic and critical reasoning course.
     It really is impossible for somebody to argue against reasoning and logic because in order to do that and convince other people, they must use what they are arguing against. And in that reasoning, there is the paradox which really shows to me the importance of this concept called reason.
P1-One cannot argue against reason with reason without undermining their own argument
P2- One cannot argue against reason without reason because one could not argue it rationally.
C-One cannot argue against reason successfully.

Why Howdy

So, for those of you who do not know, this is my blog for my Intro to Logic philosophy class. Here, I will be talking about all sorts of logical things (hopefully).
For those of you who don't know me, my name is Griffin, and I am a sophomore philosophy/psych major. So in other words, I am pretty good at critical thinking, deep insights into human nature, and BS. I love reading and writing (Fantasy and nonfiction mainly), and hope to have at least one actual novel published before I die.
So, starting this week I will be blogging, so look forward to my next post!