About problems with logic
A search of a peasant - dug up moonshine.
- So, sir! - says district. - Wonderful! Shcha we for moonshine and that ...
- So I did not drive!
- But the device is there!
- Then judge for rape !!!
- What are you, someone raped?!?
- Not! But the apparatus is there!
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 feared anecdote, which, better than any other 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 into two tops , as a result of which my opinion about habrasoobschestve dramatically changed. In addition, yesterday I participated in a wonderful flame dedicated to metal as a subculture, which also left a definite imprint on this record. Of course, judging any community by its ten inadequate representatives is a bullshit, but the human mind is structured and cataloged, highlighting the active representatives of groups and creating stereotypical representatives that form patterns of communication, regardless of the will of the owner of the mind. . I will not be indignant, I will not call everyone a stupid ghouls, empty-headed degenerates, dull zadroty, thick trolls, crazy cretins and other unflattering words - such posts on Habré are more than enough recently, and the benefits of them are zero. I will simply draw your attention to some features of the theses and evidence used, as a result of which I came to the conclusion that such an article would not be superfluous at all.
I apologize for the extensive introduction, let's go directly to the essence 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 so that, from the right prerequisites, to get the right conclusions. The laws of logic have not changed since the Aristotelian times, and for the full and 100% mastering of all laws, it is recommended to read the textbook. However, here I want to draw attention to the basic mistakes that people make, proving their theses.
Error one - "does not mean subsequently because of"
It should be remembered that two events separated by a time interval are not necessarily logically related. To put it bluntly, if I scratch my nose now, it didn’t happen at all because I scratched my eye five minutes ago, but it happened because my nose itched five seconds ago.
Many now laughed - how can you make such a mistake? However, it is allowed at every turn. As a fresh example, you can read comments on the topic dedicated to NASA photos, which show the landing site on the moon . In the comments, the man quite seriously asserts that the photos 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 assert this, since no such statements have been made officially? Such a statement is made due to this error.
Error two - "feasible does not mean implemented."
It should be remembered that if someone has a fundamental opportunity to commit an act, it does not at all follow that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit. For example, I have a fundamental opportunity to buy a Lexus (although I will have to sit on bread and water for 5 years, but there is an 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 person who claims that there is no 100% evidence of a flight to the moon, and the ability to fake materials exists. 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 incorrect.
A similar error was made in this topic . The argument “why Americans don’t fly to the Moon anymore, although they can do it” is inappropriate to prove the position “Americans didn’t fly to the Moon,” precisely because of this logical error.
Error three - “thinkable is not feasible”
Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I wrote a short story with a theological bias. I did not finish the story, and she died during the next formatting of the hard drive, but the selected passages remained in my memory. In one of them, the two heroes argue about the fundamental possibility of teleportation, and as an argument one of the heroes (as intended - a deeply religious person) says the phrase as an argument:
“Everything is possible that can be imagined, for in all the diversity and majesty of the flight of human thought, we cannot even come closer to the borders of the world created by the all-powerful Creator, let alone overcome them.”
For a believer - the argument is incredibly powerful, but it is 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 are quite serious in saying that, due to the failure to provide 100% of the evidence, most likely there was falsification, while not taking into account the complexity of organizing this kind of 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 falsification of this kind is even difficult to calculate, simply due to the fact that by the nature of falsification of access to the documents describing it, we don’t have ) will not be. Nevertheless, people quite seriously believe that falsification is feasible simply because it is conceivable, although a huge number of unsolved problems remain behind the scenes.
Error four - "a conversation with a mirror"
This error is not so much a logical error as a perception error, but very gross, and often indicates a low intellectual level of the interlocutor. Fortunately, on Habré, I have not yet met those (although they exist, as in any other community), but I met in other places. This error looks like this:
- At an older age, the love of metal with texts dedicated to elves, trolls, and other evil spirits, "there are still three or four conditions", indicates a low intellectual level.
- You say that all metalists are brainless cretins? Then you have nothing to talk about.
What happens in this dialogue? One of the interlocutors presents a thesis for discussion, limiting it to the scope of applicability. The second one discards the scope of applicability, takes the thesis, projects it onto himself, automatically refuting (he claims that all idiots, but I am clever, I know that), and then projects the refuted thesis to the interlocutor, putting his own nonsense on his lips, and on this basis states that the source is an idiot.
Such, if not strange, occurs quite often. Sometimes one gets the impression that a person does not read what is written to him, but invents something in his head, attributes 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 for a person to simply understand that his words have nothing to do with mine - for two days it was a blind conversation with a deaf person. However, in the end he understood.
Fifth error - "if you do not see something, then it is not a fact that this does not exist."
It is impossible to know everything - it is completely understandable The times when a person could have full academic knowledge finished 100 years ago, and now experts rule the show. Unfortunately, on the same ground a huge number of charlatans appeared, who only pretend to be experts, but in fact, they understand the topic no better than those who listen to them and subsequently use their opinions.
A typical mistake of such a plan is a comment about the appearance of shadows on a photo during gamma correction in a topic dedicated to NASA photos. The person, completely unaware of analogue photo processing, makes an unequivocal conclusion that the artifact that appeared is a shadow on the wall of the pavilion where the falsification was taken. He is not embarrassed that the shadow does not completely follow the contours of the object that this shadow casts. He is not embarrassed that the shadow is absolutely black. It would seem that gives him the right to make such a conclusion? Nothing - such a conclusion only indicates the narrowness of the field of knowledge of such a person (good, then the expert appeared and explained that the appeared “shadow” is a trace of a mask that is superimposed when overexposing images).
The problem is that with a narrow horizon or insufficient knowledge in an arbitrary area, it is quite problematic to distinguish a specialist from an amateur in this area. The problem is unsolvable in principle, the only way out is to use proven experts.
And finally, the last and most important mistake.
Error six - “all animals are equal, but some are more equal”
There is a thesis that every opinion has a right to exist, and a person has a right to his own opinion, whatever that 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, it is not.
A specialist's opinion always has a much greater weight, and the more deeply a specialist knows the topic, the more his personal level of knowledge is - the more weight his opinion has. You can not equate two opinions on the development of system architecture from a professional architect and a student who finished programming courses in C # yesterday. It is clear to everyone. However, when the example is not so obvious - this mistake is made by many.
For example, in the topic dedicated to NASA photographs, everyone who claims to have a conspiracy, including this mistake. They, possessing obviously less knowledge, believe that their opinion is equivalent to expert assessments of specialists who directly watched the process. Naturally, this is nonsense.
And, finally, a small farewell. 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 inapplicable to real life. And so - be careful with the assumptions. Thank you for your attention, I hope the material was at least something useful for you and you did not waste your time reading it.
- So, sir! - says district. - Wonderful! Shcha we for moonshine and that ...
- So I did not drive!
- But the device is there!
- Then judge for rape !!!
- What are you, someone raped?!?
- Not! But the apparatus is there!
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 feared anecdote, which, better than any other 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 into two tops , as a result of which my opinion about habrasoobschestve dramatically changed. In addition, yesterday I participated in a wonderful flame dedicated to metal as a subculture, which also left a definite imprint on this record. Of course, judging any community by its ten inadequate representatives is a bullshit, but the human mind is structured and cataloged, highlighting the active representatives of groups and creating stereotypical representatives that form patterns of communication, regardless of the will of the owner of the mind. . I will not be indignant, I will not call everyone a stupid ghouls, empty-headed degenerates, dull zadroty, thick trolls, crazy cretins and other unflattering words - such posts on Habré are more than enough recently, and the benefits of them are zero. I will simply draw your attention to some features of the theses and evidence used, as a result of which I came to the conclusion that such an article would not be superfluous at all.
I apologize for the extensive introduction, let's go directly to the essence 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 so that, from the right prerequisites, to get the right conclusions. The laws of logic have not changed since the Aristotelian times, and for the full and 100% mastering of all laws, it is recommended to read the textbook. However, here I want to draw attention to the basic mistakes that people make, proving their theses.
Error one - "does not mean subsequently because of"
It should be remembered that two events separated by a time interval are not necessarily logically related. To put it bluntly, if I scratch my nose now, it didn’t happen at all because I scratched my eye five minutes ago, but it happened because my nose itched five seconds ago.
Many now laughed - how can you make such a mistake? However, it is allowed at every turn. As a fresh example, you can read comments on the topic dedicated to NASA photos, which show the landing site on the moon . In the comments, the man quite seriously asserts that the photos 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 assert this, since no such statements have been made officially? Such a statement is made due to this error.
Error two - "feasible does not mean implemented."
It should be remembered that if someone has a fundamental opportunity to commit an act, it does not at all follow that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit. For example, I have a fundamental opportunity to buy a Lexus (although I will have to sit on bread and water for 5 years, but there is an 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 person who claims that there is no 100% evidence of a flight to the moon, and the ability to fake materials exists. 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 incorrect.
A similar error was made in this topic . The argument “why Americans don’t fly to the Moon anymore, although they can do it” is inappropriate to prove the position “Americans didn’t fly to the Moon,” precisely because of this logical error.
Error three - “thinkable is not feasible”
Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I wrote a short story with a theological bias. I did not finish the story, and she died during the next formatting of the hard drive, but the selected passages remained in my memory. In one of them, the two heroes argue about the fundamental possibility of teleportation, and as an argument one of the heroes (as intended - a deeply religious person) says the phrase as an argument:
“Everything is possible that can be imagined, for in all the diversity and majesty of the flight of human thought, we cannot even come closer to the borders of the world created by the all-powerful Creator, let alone overcome them.”
For a believer - the argument is incredibly powerful, but it is 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 are quite serious in saying that, due to the failure to provide 100% of the evidence, most likely there was falsification, while not taking into account the complexity of organizing this kind of 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 falsification of this kind is even difficult to calculate, simply due to the fact that by the nature of falsification of access to the documents describing it, we don’t have ) will not be. Nevertheless, people quite seriously believe that falsification is feasible simply because it is conceivable, although a huge number of unsolved problems remain behind the scenes.
Error four - "a conversation with a mirror"
This error is not so much a logical error as a perception error, but very gross, and often indicates a low intellectual level of the interlocutor. Fortunately, on Habré, I have not yet met those (although they exist, as in any other community), but I met in other places. This error looks like this:
- At an older age, the love of metal with texts dedicated to elves, trolls, and other evil spirits, "there are still three or four conditions", indicates a low intellectual level.
- You say that all metalists are brainless cretins? Then you have nothing to talk about.
What happens in this dialogue? One of the interlocutors presents a thesis for discussion, limiting it to the scope of applicability. The second one discards the scope of applicability, takes the thesis, projects it onto himself, automatically refuting (he claims that all idiots, but I am clever, I know that), and then projects the refuted thesis to the interlocutor, putting his own nonsense on his lips, and on this basis states that the source is an idiot.
Such, if not strange, occurs quite often. Sometimes one gets the impression that a person does not read what is written to him, but invents something in his head, attributes 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 for a person to simply understand that his words have nothing to do with mine - for two days it was a blind conversation with a deaf person. However, in the end he understood.
Fifth error - "if you do not see something, then it is not a fact that this does not exist."
It is impossible to know everything - it is completely understandable The times when a person could have full academic knowledge finished 100 years ago, and now experts rule the show. Unfortunately, on the same ground a huge number of charlatans appeared, who only pretend to be experts, but in fact, they understand the topic no better than those who listen to them and subsequently use their opinions.
A typical mistake of such a plan is a comment about the appearance of shadows on a photo during gamma correction in a topic dedicated to NASA photos. The person, completely unaware of analogue photo processing, makes an unequivocal conclusion that the artifact that appeared is a shadow on the wall of the pavilion where the falsification was taken. He is not embarrassed that the shadow does not completely follow the contours of the object that this shadow casts. He is not embarrassed that the shadow is absolutely black. It would seem that gives him the right to make such a conclusion? Nothing - such a conclusion only indicates the narrowness of the field of knowledge of such a person (good, then the expert appeared and explained that the appeared “shadow” is a trace of a mask that is superimposed when overexposing images).
The problem is that with a narrow horizon or insufficient knowledge in an arbitrary area, it is quite problematic to distinguish a specialist from an amateur in this area. The problem is unsolvable in principle, the only way out is to use proven experts.
And finally, the last and most important mistake.
Error six - “all animals are equal, but some are more equal”
There is a thesis that every opinion has a right to exist, and a person has a right to his own opinion, whatever that 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, it is not.
A specialist's opinion always has a much greater weight, and the more deeply a specialist knows the topic, the more his personal level of knowledge is - the more weight his opinion has. You can not equate two opinions on the development of system architecture from a professional architect and a student who finished programming courses in C # yesterday. It is clear to everyone. However, when the example is not so obvious - this mistake is made by many.
For example, in the topic dedicated to NASA photographs, everyone who claims to have a conspiracy, including this mistake. They, possessing obviously less knowledge, believe that their opinion is equivalent to expert assessments of specialists who directly watched the process. Naturally, this is nonsense.
And, finally, a small farewell. 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 inapplicable to real life. And so - be careful with the assumptions. Thank you for your attention, I hope the material was at least something useful for you and you did not waste your time reading it.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/65008/
All Articles