July 21, 2009 at 13:19About logic issues
A search by a peasant - they dig a moonshine still.
- Well, sir! - says the district. - Wonderful! SchA, we are for moonshining and that ...
- So I did not persecute you!
“But there is an apparatus!”
- Then judge for rape !!!
- Have you raped someone?!?
- Not! But there is an apparatus!
According to the traditions of Habrahabr, at the beginning of the post there must be an idiotic picture from the clip art gallery, designed to draw attention to the article. Instead, I will begin with a fearful joke, which better than any picture will explain the essence of my further reasoning and explanation.
I really hope that the article will be useful, and if it helps at least one person to change something in themselves for the better, I will be happy.
The other day I ran intotwo topics, as a result of which my opinion about the habrasociety has changed dramatically. In addition, yesterday I participated in a wonderful flame dedicated to metal as a subculture, which also left a certain imprint on this record. Of course, judging any community by the dozen of its inadequate representatives is bullshit, but the human mind is organized in such a way that it groups and catalogs, highlighting active representatives of groups and creating stereotypical representatives on their basis that form communication templates, regardless of the will of the mind owner . I will not resent, I will not call everyone stupid ghouls, hollow-headed degenerates, dull nerds, fat trolls, crazy cretins and other unflattering words - there have been more than enough such posts on Habré lately, and there has been no benefit from them.
I apologize for the lengthy introduction, we will go directly to the point under the habrakat.
As you know, any discussion is based on theses, which are proved in one way or another, based on the laws of logic. Logic is known as the science of right thinking, that is, the science of how to think in such a way as to get the right conclusions from the right premises. The laws of logic have not changed since the Aristotelian times, and for a complete and 100% mastery of all laws, it is recommended to read the textbook. However, here I want to draw attention to the main mistakes that people make when proving their theses.
The first mistake is “subsequently does not mean due to”
It should be remembered that two events separated by a time interval are not necessarily logically connected. Roughly speaking, if I scratch my nose now, this did not happen at all because I scratched my eye five minutes ago, but it happened because my nose was scratched five seconds ago.
Many now laughed - how can such a mistake be made? However, it is admitted at every step. As a recent example, you can read comments on the topic dedicated to NASA photographs, which depict the place of landing on the moon. In the comments, the man seriously says that the photographs were taken in order to refute the rumors that there was no flight to the moon at all. It would seem, what reason does he have to say this, because officially such statements have not been made? Such a statement is made due to this error.
The second mistake is "feasible does not mean implemented."
It should be remembered that if someone has the fundamental possibility of committing an act, it does not at all follow that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit it. For example, I have a fundamental opportunity to buy a Lexus (though I’ll have to sit on bread and water for about 5 years, but I have the opportunity) - but this does not mean that I buy it.
Again, an obvious example - and right there, in the same topic devoted to NASA photographs, a man who claims that there is no 100% evidence of a flight to the moon, and there is an opportunity to fake materials. From the absence of 100% evidence and the presence of the possibility of falsification, in his opinion, the fact of falsification directly follows, although, from the point of view of logic, such a conclusion is wrong.
A similar mistake was made in this topic . The argument “why Americans don’t fly to the moon, although they can do it” is wrong to prove the position “Americans didn’t fly to the moon”, precisely because of this logical mistake.
The third mistake - “conceivable does not mean feasible”
Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I wrote a short story with a theological bias. I didn’t finish the story, and she died during the next formatting of the hard drive, but the selected passages were preserved in my memory. In one of them, two heroes argue about the fundamental possibility of teleportation, and as an argument one of the heroes (as conceived by a deeply religious person) utters the phrase as an argument:
“Everything that can be imagined is possible, because in all the diversity and grandeur of human flight we are incapable of even approaching the borders of the world created by the almighty Creator, not to mention overcoming them. ”
For a believer - the argument is incredibly powerful, but it's not about that. This mistake is made by almost all supporters of conspiracy theories. For example, in the same topic devoted to NASA photographs, people quite seriously say that due to the failure to provide 100% of the evidence, there was most likely a falsification, while not taking into account the complexity of organizing such a falsification. And if the complexity of the lunar program can be calculated quite accurately, if you rely on the remaining documents, then the complexity of creating falsifications of this kind is even difficult to calculate, simply because by the nature of falsification of access to documents describing it, we never and never (most likely ) will not. However, people seriously consider falsification feasible simply because it is conceivable,
The fourth mistake is “talking with the mirror.”
This mistake is not so much a logical as a perception error, but it is very gross and often indicates a low intellectual level of the interlocutor. Fortunately, I have not yet seen those on Habré (although they are, as in any other community), but I have met them in other places. This error looks something like this:
- At an older age, a love of metal with texts dedicated to elves, trolls and other evil spirits, <here are three or four more conditions>, indicates a low intellectual level.
“You claim that all metalists are brainless nerds?” Then there’s nothing to talk about with you.
What is going on in this dialogue? One of the interlocutors submits a thesis for discussion, limiting it to the scope of applicability. The second one casts aside the applicability, perceives the thesis, projects it onto itself, automatically refuting (he claims to be idiots, but I'm smart, I know that), after which he projects the disproved thesis onto the interlocutor, putting his own nonsense into his mouth, and on the basis of this, declares that the interlocutor is an idiot.
This, as it is not strange, is common enough. Sometimes it seems that a person does not read what they write, but invents something in his head, ascribes his own nonsense (which he skillfully refutes) to the interlocutor, and thinks that he refuted the thesis that the interlocutor provided. In fact, such a refutation, of course, has nothing to do with the original thesis.
To explain to such a person that he is doing wrong is incredibly difficult. I once spent 2 days making a person simply understand that his words have nothing to do with mine - for two days it was a conversation between a blind person and a deaf person. However, in the end he understood.
Fifth mistake - "if you don’t see something, then it’s not a fact that this does not exist."
It is impossible to know everything - this is completely understandable. The times when a person could have complete academic knowledge ended 100 years ago, and now experts rule the ball. Unfortunately, a huge number of charlatans appeared on the same ground, who only pretend to be experts, but in fact, they understand the topic no better than those who heed them and subsequently use their opinion.
A typical mistake of such a plan is a comment about the appearance of shadows in photographs during gamma correction in a topic devoted to NASA photographs. The man, completely understanding nothing in the analog processing of photographs, makes an unambiguous conclusion that the artefact that appeared is a shadow on the wall of the pavilion where the fake was shot. He is not confused that the shadow does not at all follow the contours of the object that casts this shadow. He does not mind that the shadow is completely black. It would seem that gives him the right to draw such a conclusion? Nothing - such a conclusion testifies only to the narrowness of the field of knowledge of such a person (fortunately, an expert appeared later and explained that the “shadow” that appeared was a trace of the mask that overlaps when overexposing the pictures).
The problem is that with a narrow horizons or insufficient knowledge in an arbitrary field to distinguish a specialist from an amateur in this area is quite problematic. The problem is unsolvable in principle, the only way out is to use trusted specialists.
And finally, the last and most important mistake.
Sixth mistake - “all animals are equal, but some are more equal”
There is a thesis that any opinion has a right to exist, and a person has the right to own opinion, whatever it may be. It really is. However, many people make a much stronger conclusion from this, as if two different opinions of two different people on the same issue are absolutely equal. Naturally, this is not so.
The opinion of a specialist always has much more weight, and the more deeply the specialist knows the topic, the more his personal level of knowledge - the greater the weight of his opinion. It is impossible to equate two opinions on the development of system architecture with a professional architect and a student who completed programming courses in C # yesterday. This is clear to everyone. However, when the example is not so obvious - very many make this mistake.
For example, in a topic devoted to NASA photographs, everyone who claims a conspiracy, including making this mistake. They, having a knowingly lesser amount of knowledge, believe that their opinion is tantamount to expert evaluations of specialists who directly observed the process. Naturally, this is stupid.
And finally, a small parting word. Remember that according to the laws of logic, from the wrong premise you can draw any correct conclusions, but they will all be absurd and not applicable to real life. And therefore - more accurately with assumptions. Thank you for your attention, I hope that the material was at least something useful for you and you have not wasted your time reading it.
- Well, sir! - says the district. - Wonderful! SchA, we are for moonshining and that ...
- So I did not persecute you!
“But there is an apparatus!”
- Then judge for rape !!!
- Have you raped someone?!?
- Not! But there is an apparatus!
According to the traditions of Habrahabr, at the beginning of the post there must be an idiotic picture from the clip art gallery, designed to draw attention to the article. Instead, I will begin with a fearful joke, which better than any picture will explain the essence of my further reasoning and explanation.
I really hope that the article will be useful, and if it helps at least one person to change something in themselves for the better, I will be happy.
The other day I ran intotwo topics, as a result of which my opinion about the habrasociety has changed dramatically. In addition, yesterday I participated in a wonderful flame dedicated to metal as a subculture, which also left a certain imprint on this record. Of course, judging any community by the dozen of its inadequate representatives is bullshit, but the human mind is organized in such a way that it groups and catalogs, highlighting active representatives of groups and creating stereotypical representatives on their basis that form communication templates, regardless of the will of the mind owner . I will not resent, I will not call everyone stupid ghouls, hollow-headed degenerates, dull nerds, fat trolls, crazy cretins and other unflattering words - there have been more than enough such posts on Habré lately, and there has been no benefit from them.
I apologize for the lengthy introduction, we will go directly to the point under the habrakat.
As you know, any discussion is based on theses, which are proved in one way or another, based on the laws of logic. Logic is known as the science of right thinking, that is, the science of how to think in such a way as to get the right conclusions from the right premises. The laws of logic have not changed since the Aristotelian times, and for a complete and 100% mastery of all laws, it is recommended to read the textbook. However, here I want to draw attention to the main mistakes that people make when proving their theses.
The first mistake is “subsequently does not mean due to”
It should be remembered that two events separated by a time interval are not necessarily logically connected. Roughly speaking, if I scratch my nose now, this did not happen at all because I scratched my eye five minutes ago, but it happened because my nose was scratched five seconds ago.
Many now laughed - how can such a mistake be made? However, it is admitted at every step. As a recent example, you can read comments on the topic dedicated to NASA photographs, which depict the place of landing on the moon. In the comments, the man seriously says that the photographs were taken in order to refute the rumors that there was no flight to the moon at all. It would seem, what reason does he have to say this, because officially such statements have not been made? Such a statement is made due to this error.
The second mistake is "feasible does not mean implemented."
It should be remembered that if someone has the fundamental possibility of committing an act, it does not at all follow that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit it. For example, I have a fundamental opportunity to buy a Lexus (though I’ll have to sit on bread and water for about 5 years, but I have the opportunity) - but this does not mean that I buy it.
Again, an obvious example - and right there, in the same topic devoted to NASA photographs, a man who claims that there is no 100% evidence of a flight to the moon, and there is an opportunity to fake materials. From the absence of 100% evidence and the presence of the possibility of falsification, in his opinion, the fact of falsification directly follows, although, from the point of view of logic, such a conclusion is wrong.
A similar mistake was made in this topic . The argument “why Americans don’t fly to the moon, although they can do it” is wrong to prove the position “Americans didn’t fly to the moon”, precisely because of this logical mistake.
The third mistake - “conceivable does not mean feasible”
Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I wrote a short story with a theological bias. I didn’t finish the story, and she died during the next formatting of the hard drive, but the selected passages were preserved in my memory. In one of them, two heroes argue about the fundamental possibility of teleportation, and as an argument one of the heroes (as conceived by a deeply religious person) utters the phrase as an argument:
“Everything that can be imagined is possible, because in all the diversity and grandeur of human flight we are incapable of even approaching the borders of the world created by the almighty Creator, not to mention overcoming them. ”
For a believer - the argument is incredibly powerful, but it's not about that. This mistake is made by almost all supporters of conspiracy theories. For example, in the same topic devoted to NASA photographs, people quite seriously say that due to the failure to provide 100% of the evidence, there was most likely a falsification, while not taking into account the complexity of organizing such a falsification. And if the complexity of the lunar program can be calculated quite accurately, if you rely on the remaining documents, then the complexity of creating falsifications of this kind is even difficult to calculate, simply because by the nature of falsification of access to documents describing it, we never and never (most likely ) will not. However, people seriously consider falsification feasible simply because it is conceivable,
The fourth mistake is “talking with the mirror.”
This mistake is not so much a logical as a perception error, but it is very gross and often indicates a low intellectual level of the interlocutor. Fortunately, I have not yet seen those on Habré (although they are, as in any other community), but I have met them in other places. This error looks something like this:
- At an older age, a love of metal with texts dedicated to elves, trolls and other evil spirits, <here are three or four more conditions>, indicates a low intellectual level.
“You claim that all metalists are brainless nerds?” Then there’s nothing to talk about with you.
What is going on in this dialogue? One of the interlocutors submits a thesis for discussion, limiting it to the scope of applicability. The second one casts aside the applicability, perceives the thesis, projects it onto itself, automatically refuting (he claims to be idiots, but I'm smart, I know that), after which he projects the disproved thesis onto the interlocutor, putting his own nonsense into his mouth, and on the basis of this, declares that the interlocutor is an idiot.
This, as it is not strange, is common enough. Sometimes it seems that a person does not read what they write, but invents something in his head, ascribes his own nonsense (which he skillfully refutes) to the interlocutor, and thinks that he refuted the thesis that the interlocutor provided. In fact, such a refutation, of course, has nothing to do with the original thesis.
To explain to such a person that he is doing wrong is incredibly difficult. I once spent 2 days making a person simply understand that his words have nothing to do with mine - for two days it was a conversation between a blind person and a deaf person. However, in the end he understood.
Fifth mistake - "if you don’t see something, then it’s not a fact that this does not exist."
It is impossible to know everything - this is completely understandable. The times when a person could have complete academic knowledge ended 100 years ago, and now experts rule the ball. Unfortunately, a huge number of charlatans appeared on the same ground, who only pretend to be experts, but in fact, they understand the topic no better than those who heed them and subsequently use their opinion.
A typical mistake of such a plan is a comment about the appearance of shadows in photographs during gamma correction in a topic devoted to NASA photographs. The man, completely understanding nothing in the analog processing of photographs, makes an unambiguous conclusion that the artefact that appeared is a shadow on the wall of the pavilion where the fake was shot. He is not confused that the shadow does not at all follow the contours of the object that casts this shadow. He does not mind that the shadow is completely black. It would seem that gives him the right to draw such a conclusion? Nothing - such a conclusion testifies only to the narrowness of the field of knowledge of such a person (fortunately, an expert appeared later and explained that the “shadow” that appeared was a trace of the mask that overlaps when overexposing the pictures).
The problem is that with a narrow horizons or insufficient knowledge in an arbitrary field to distinguish a specialist from an amateur in this area is quite problematic. The problem is unsolvable in principle, the only way out is to use trusted specialists.
And finally, the last and most important mistake.
Sixth mistake - “all animals are equal, but some are more equal”
There is a thesis that any opinion has a right to exist, and a person has the right to own opinion, whatever it may be. It really is. However, many people make a much stronger conclusion from this, as if two different opinions of two different people on the same issue are absolutely equal. Naturally, this is not so.
The opinion of a specialist always has much more weight, and the more deeply the specialist knows the topic, the more his personal level of knowledge - the greater the weight of his opinion. It is impossible to equate two opinions on the development of system architecture with a professional architect and a student who completed programming courses in C # yesterday. This is clear to everyone. However, when the example is not so obvious - very many make this mistake.
For example, in a topic devoted to NASA photographs, everyone who claims a conspiracy, including making this mistake. They, having a knowingly lesser amount of knowledge, believe that their opinion is tantamount to expert evaluations of specialists who directly observed the process. Naturally, this is stupid.
And finally, a small parting word. Remember that according to the laws of logic, from the wrong premise you can draw any correct conclusions, but they will all be absurd and not applicable to real life. And therefore - more accurately with assumptions. Thank you for your attention, I hope that the material was at least something useful for you and you have not wasted your time reading it.