Religious Tolerance

[ledhed]

Who is Afaik ? Explain this new misnomer to me pease . Must we now worship AFAIK ?

Must I sacrifice my last bottle of JacK Daniels in the name of AFAIK ?

Odin will be really pissed .....so will I ........but hey............ its a SACRIFICE right ?

Someone must do it . Or it will mean ...like a tornado......... or locust............. or something nasty........... like Taco Bell.

 

[Deathclown66]

Yes, I have a hard time understanding the nonsensical.



It is illogical to present a situation where there are only a limited set of choices, when if fact one or more additional choices may exist.

Example

Which statement is true?

a) You have renounced your bigotry
b) You are still a bigot

Choose a) or b).

This is a fallacy because it ignores a third option, c) You have never been a bigot to begin with. It's been a well documented logical fallacy and has been for a couple thousand years. You keep saying logic doesn't account for this, but in fact, anyone who has studied logic since the Greeks understands this.

M

It's not a question, and not a trick question, nor a fallacy.

it has not ignored any option.
it is a statement, that actually proves exactly what you are saying.
If you do not know all the options, no line of logical or illogical thought will give you the right answer
Do you get it yet, or do you need special elaboration?

Now, just as a technical note to our logically minded readers. That last quote from DC might actually be correct, but only because it doesn't mean what he intended it to mean.

please, do explain.
Since apparantly, my words may be true, but you have derived an alternate meaning from them, one which I did not intend.

 

[Danoff]

please, do explain.
Since apparantly, my words may be true, but you have derived an alternate meaning from them, one which I did not intend.

Ok

To call people "ignorant" for believing that the first thing to exist, was a god, that created everything else, is no more ignorant than saying it wasn't.

You say calling believers ignorant is not more ignorant than not believing.... or... to put it more simply:

There are two things you're evaluating:

1) Calling someone ignorant
2) Saying God didn't create the universe.

You say neither is more ignorant than the other. That could be true.... but it isn't what you meant to say. You meant to evalute these two things:

1) Believing in God
2) Not believing in God

Like I said, it's technical and picky. Not a big deal since I got the gist of it. It was probably just a thought you forgot to finish.

 

[Deathclown66]

it's not ignorant to call someone ignorant, as long as they are ignorant.
The reality is, we are all ignorant to the origins of the universe, and the existence of god, or lack thereof.
This is why I say it is foolish to call people ignorant for a belief in god.

Now, if you're talking about Jews denying Jesus, and the second half of the bible, or catholics praying to mary, or a 6-houndred pound buddah preaching discipline, then, I'd say there's plenty of room to poke fun.

 

[///M-Spec]

It's not a question, and not a trick question, nor a fallacy.

it has not ignored any option.
it is a statement, that actually proves exactly what you are saying.

It has not ignored any option?

YOU stated in your "house paint" post that logic causes people to ignore options that exist.

If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

But what logic cant tell you is that the house was stripped of it's paint. And since you don't know paint can be stripped, you can't even consider it an option*.

* = emphisis mine

Let's examine what you are saying here.

You see your house. You see it is painted white.

Because it is currently white, LOGIC will lead you to conclude it has ALWAYS been white.

This is nonsense because the ONLY way logic would allow you to arrive at that conclusion would be to require you to believe this following premise: WHAT YOU OBSERVE CURRENTLY (a white house) HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

First, I suggest you bother to read what you write and post things that actually agree with something you wrote three or four posts ago. That way, people might actually get the impression you have given the topic some thought instead of spouting off whatever pops in your head from one minute to the next.

Second, your "house paint" situation is not an example of good logic. It is a good examle of ignorance and idiocy based on a False Premise (that a house can not be repainted; that what the house you see today is the same house 10, 20 or 50 years ago). It might be logic to a four year old, but even my four year old can understand that houses can be repainted.

There are really only two ways to know something: observation and inference. Logic is the methodology by which valid and fallacious inferences are evaluated. It allows us to DRAW CONCLUSIONS from what we KNOW --AND-- allows us to validate which conclusions are valid and which are conclusions are NOT.

Conclusions based on fales premises are fallacious arguments. Logic has built-in mechanisms for refuting these arguments.

If you do not know all the options, no line of logical or illogical thought will give you the right answer

Not true. There is a whole school of logical thought that is concerned with inferences from uncertainty. Again, logical inference is just one aspect of epistemology, oberservation being the other. But only a fraction of human knowledge comes from pure emperical observation. I would suggest you study the topic a bit more throughly, but I suspect you're more interested in winning an argument and appearing clever, rather than learning about something you don't really understand. Maybe your problem with logic is that you're just not very good with it.

Do you get it yet, or do you need special elaboration?

Absolutely. If I need someone to teach me how to make false assumptions and attack things of which I am ignorant, I'll definitely come to you for instruction.


M

 

[Danoff]

DC,

What ///M just wrote is why I was telling you that you need to take a course in logic. You clearly don't understand it.

Edit: It's not like you're the only one, lots of people have no concept of logic. But it's extremely useful so I do highly recommend looking into it. The course I took was called "Logic, Sets, and Recursion" and was taught at university in the philosophy department. I recommend that you find something similar. If you like, I can recommend a book or two.

 

[Deathclown66]

wow, you guys can't grasp an example.

An example is not about the specifics of itself, but what it represents.
If I said by the human eye, standing on the earth, one would logically assume the sun rotated around the earth, it would mean nothing different from the house painting example.
But since you are unable to put yourself through the difficult transformation into someone who does not know about paint stripping or whatever, you say "everybody knows you can repaint a house, so that's unlogical!"

And you're so hell bent on what I said meaning what you misinterpreted it as, that when I clarify, and you feel a bit, well, you know, you tell me that I'm changing what I say, or disagreeing with myself. Nice.

But if you want to believe that logic ( a line, or "type" of resoning" will "teach" you things, and give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for, that's perfectly ok with me.

So, I'll revise the House paint, to something a little more "than what you're 4 year-old can understand".
As a man walking the earth, in the year 2295 B.C., was it logical to believe that the sun rotated around the earth?
Yes. Yes it was. Because logic is a line of reasoning, not a training course, not a source of knowledge, logic is simply a tool to unwind the information you have.

 

[Danoff]

As a man walking the earth, in the year 2295 B.C., was it logical to believe that the sun rotated around the earth?
Yes. Yes it was. Because logic is a line of reasoning, not a training course, not a source of knowledge, logic is simply a tool to unwind the information you have.

No. To conclude that would be to use inductive reasoning which is logically flawed. Proper logic hinges on deductive reasoning, which you're not implementing in any of your examples. I'm not sure you even know what deductive reasoning is. Like I said, you're abusing the concept of logic in each of your examples and should really take a course in it.

Since you don't seem interested in the references I offered to provide, I'll give you an example of deductive reasoning:

Assume A, now assume If A then B.

from that set of premises, one can deductively conclude B.

That's about as simple as logic gets. A real world of this example would be the following.

Assume it is raining.
Also assume that if it is raining, the streets are wet.

Therefore, we can deductively conclude that the streets are wet. We require no observation of the streets to know this, it follows from our two premises.

Deductive reasoning is proper logic, and it is the basis for such useful things as arithmatic, algebra, calculus, as well as less tangible things in philosophy.

Inductive reasoning is flawed logic, but it is useful. Here is an example of inductive reasoning:

Assume All cows I've seen are black.

From that we can conclude that all cows are black. This logically does not follow from the premise, but it follows from inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the basis of science (quite useful), but it is not properly supported by logic alone. The example you provided is a good example of how inductive reasoning can get you into trouble. Alternatively, one could come to the false conclusion you present using deductive reasoning and proper logic if the assumptions are flawed. Either way, logic itself is not to blame.

Now, hopefully you understand a little better what the word logic means and why you've been abusing it. Let me know if you're interested in the references I offered.

 

[Deathclown66]

No. To conclude that would be to use inductive reasoning which is logically flawed. Proper logic hinges on deductive reasoning, which you're not implementing in any of your examples. I'm not sure you even know what deductive reasoning is. Like I said, you're abusing the concept of logic in each of your examples and should really take a course in it.

Since you don't seem interested in the references I offered to provide, I'll give you an example of deductive reasoning:

Assume A, now assume If A then B.

from that set of premises, one can deductively conclude B.

That's about as simple as logic gets. A real world of this example would be the following.

Assume it is raining.
Also assume that if it is raining, the streets are wet.

Therefore, we can deductively conclude that the streets are wet. We require no observation of the streets to know this, it follows from our two premises.

Deductive reasoning is proper logic, and it is the basis for such useful things as arithmatic, algebra, calculus, as well as less tangible things in philosophy.

Inductive reasoning is flawed logic, but it is useful. Here is an example of inductive reasoning:

Assume All cows I've seen are black.

From that we can conclude that all cows are black. This logically does not follow from the premise, but it follows from inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the basis of science (quite useful), but it is not properly supported by logic alone. The example you provided is a good example of how inductive reasoning can get you into trouble. Alternatively, one could come to the false conclusion you present using deductive reasoning and proper logic if the assumptions are flawed. Either way, logic itself is not to blame.

Now, hopefully you understand a little better what the word logic means and why you've been abusing it. Let me know if you're interested in the references I offered.

Assume it is raining.
Also assume that if it is raining, the streets are wet.

but just because it is raining does not mean the streets are wet.
It may not be raining over the streets, maybe just a spot in the field you're standing in. Explain how this is a more sound (if not logical) thought than assuming the second example
Or, assume that some rain does not wet the streets. (since these are hypothetical scenerios) So this assumption seems quite the same as the latter:

Assume All cows I've seen are black. (assume all cows are black)

So the only difference I see here, is that when it rains on streets, they actually are going to be wet, therefore making you're first example correct.
Not all cows are black, which thereby makes the second example incorrect.

A = Rain
B = Wet streets
= Correct

A = Black Cow
B = All cows black
= incorrect

Tell me how the reasoning behind these is different


Back on topic, here's a Christian perspective on the "Big Bang" theory.
Explosions = Destruction
Destruction = Less matter than before
Less = Less.
Because explosions only destroy, never build, nor create.
making the theory "the stupidest thing I've ever heard".

What you have here is not stupidity, nor poor use of logic, rather miseducation, or a complete lack thereof.
It is simply ignorance, to the possibilty of any explosion creating anything.

P.S. Please do not exlain the explosions of gases causing formations of rock, or any other kind of solid matter, this is from many a peoples view of the subject, and I, Deathclown66, assume no liabilty or affiliation with, or supporting these thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Danoff]

but just because it is raining does not mean the streets are wet.
It may not be raining over the streets, maybe just a spot in the field you're standing in. Explain how this is a more sound (if not logical) thought than assuming the second example
Or, assume that some rain does not wet the streets. (since these are hypothetical scenerios) So this assumption seems quite the same as the latter:
So the only difference I see here, is that when it rains on streets, they actually are going to be wet, therefore making you're first example correct.
Not all cows are black, which thereby makes the second example incorrect.

A = Rain
B = Wet streets
= Correct

A = Black Cow
B = All cows black
= incorrect

Tell me how the reasoning behind these is different

Don't pick at the assumptions. The assumptions are correct in both cases. They're not logic, they're assumptions - as in given such and such, the rest follows. Logic is the means by which we draw conclusions from the assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the logic can be valid and you still end up with the wrong answer.

Here's wikipedia's attempt at explaining inductive reasoning:

It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns

In induction, you're using observations or experiences to draw truth based on patterns. That's not logically supported because additional observations can invalidate it - basically, it isn't proof.

Deduction, on the otherhand, is what allows you to draw conclusions that are LOGICALLY PROVEN from a set of premises. Logically sound conclusions or operations are named. The one I gave you is called Modus Ponens. It says that if A is true, and you know that A implies B, then you can conlude that B is true. Anytime you use that line of reasoning you're using Modus Ponens. There are others, like Disjunctive Syllogism or De Morgan's Theorem. They're simple operations.

Disjunctive syllogism states that:
If you know p or q is true
and you know p is not true
q must be true

De Morgan's Theorem states:
If we know that we do not have both p and q
we know that we either don't have p or don't have q (using a specific definition of the word "or" which allows this statement to be true if we have neither).

So I'll reiterate
If we know the following is absolutely true
1) When it rains, the streets are wet
2) It is raining
------------------------
Logic tells us that we can rely on Modus Ponens to know that it is proven logically that the streets are wet.

 

[Deathclown66]

it sounds like your saying that it is only logical if it is correct, and that if you use logic, you must be correct.
and that with inductive reasoning, you will always be incorrect.

But what you're not understanding, is that at one point it was a "fact", that the earth was flat, and it did not move. And the sun moved across the sky, out of sight, only to return later.
Since we "knew" the earth did not move, and we "knew" the sun went across the sky, we therefore knew the sun rotated around us, just like the moon.
That form of thinking was just as logical as the streets being wet, because it is raining.

 

[Danoff]

it sounds like your saying that it is only logical if it is correct, and that if you use logic, you must be correct.
and that with inductive reasoning, you will always be incorrect.

No. That is not at all what I'm saying. You can be correct using flawed reasoning (but it would be accidental), but if you use sound reasoning and premises you will always be correct.

But what you're not understanding, is that at one point it was a "fact", that the earth was flat, and it did not move. And the sun moved across the sky, out of sight, only to return later.

These are inferences from experience and observation. They're conclusions based on flawed reasoning. One conclusion man currently has that is based on flawed reasoning is that all life requies liquid water. This could end up being incorrect, but our observations so far point to it being true.

Since we "knew" the earth did not move, and we "knew" the sun went across the sky, we therefore knew the sun rotated around us, just like the moon.
That form of thinking was just as logical as the streets being wet, because it is raining.

Not in the example I posted above. It's an abstract discussion and you have to follow it abstractly. When I say that you must take the assumptions as fact, that does not mean that the assumptions are correct - only that what logically follows is necessarily true IF the assumptions are true. As I said before, false assumptions can ruin perfect logic.

 

[ledhed]

Ummm HUH ?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, let me simplify.

First and foremost, do not challenge the assumptions. The assumptions must be assumed to be correct (that's why they're called assumptions). In each scenario the assumptions are all you know and you know them with 100% certainty. Do not add any additional information to the scenario. Use only sound logic to gather conclusions.

Ok here's three scenarios:
------------------------------------------------------
First Scenario
1a) Assume that you have an apple
1b) Assume that you know with absolute certainty that all apples will rot.

What can you conclude logically from these assumptions and why?
-----------------------------------------------------
Next scenario
2a) Assume that you know for a fact that it is not the case that you do not have an orange.

What can you logically conclude from this assumption and why?

---------------------------------------------------
Next scenario
3a) Assume that every swan you have ever seen is white

What can you logically conclude from this assumption and why?

 

[///M-Spec]

wow, you guys can't grasp an example.

And you can't seem to grasp the idea that you just may be wrong about how logic works.

In addition to the fact that when we disagree with your arguments, it is because your arguments are weak, not because we're just too stupid to see how right you are.

Why don't you give the arrogance a rest until you've demonstrated *some* knowledge of how formal logic works?

An example is not about the specifics of itself, but what it represents.

What? Do you think we were all born yesterday or something? If you want to convince someone you're right about something, your example had better be right. If the example has problems, then come up with a better example or conclude the premise is wrong.

If I said by the human eye, standing on the earth, one would logically assume the sun rotated around the earth, it would mean nothing different from the house painting example.

You seem to think that just because someone can arrive at an incorrect conclusion using 'logic' that there is something wrong with the logical process itself.

Which is like saying there is something wrong with the eating process because once in a while, someone chokes to death on a pretzel.

But since you are unable to put yourself through the difficult transformation into someone who does not know about paint stripping or whatever, you say "everybody knows you can repaint a house, so that's unlogical!"

Yeah, you're right. I have a hard time with the transformation to stupid.

And you're so hell bent on what I said meaning what you misinterpreted it as, that when I clarify, and you feel a bit, well, you know, you tell me that I'm changing what I say, or disagreeing with myself. Nice.

Yeah, I seem to have a bad habit of calling out b.s. when I see it. Really sorry about that.

Oh wait. I'm not.

But if you want to believe that logic ( a line, or "type" of resoning" will "teach" you things, and give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for, that's perfectly ok with me.

Again, you're assuming something you shouldn't be assuming: that anyone who subscribes to any of the (many) logical disciplines believes logic can answer ANY question instantly. That's not how it works.

Logic is NOT just, "I make an observation, and then I arrive at a conclusion. End of story, I've solved the mysteries of the universe. Time for a beer."

No one who works with a logical discipline for living, be it physics, electronics or mathematics sits around excreting conclusions out of their *** all day. It just doesn't work that way.

The vast majority of applied science today is made possible only by prior (in some cases, hundreds of) years of theoretical work by many, many smart people who DON'T sit around saying, "**** if I know" or "yeah, logic sucks. Let's just do what feels right."

That's because human fallibility sometimes cause people to sometimes believe in a false premise or make hasty generalizations (both logical errors). But it is not the fault of the discipline if a practitioner fails from time to time.

So, I'll revise the House paint, to something a little more "than what you're 4 year-old can understand".
As a man walking the earth, in the year 2295 B.C., was it logical to believe that the sun rotated around the earth?

Yes. Yes it was. Because logic is a line of reasoning, not a training course, not a source of knowledge, logic is simply a tool to unwind the information you have.

Man was not a very astute practioner of logic in 2295 B.C. He also believed animal entrails could tell the future.

And again, all you're saying here is that people have made wrong conclusions in the past. Therefore there must be something wrong with logic itself.

Which is like saying there is something wrong with airplanes because they sometimes crash or medicine because people still die.

But what you're not understanding, is that at one point it was a "fact", that the earth was flat, and it did not move. And the sun moved across the sky, out of sight, only to return later.
Since we "knew" the earth did not move, and we "knew" the sun went across the sky, we therefore knew the sun rotated around us, just like the moon.
That form of thinking was just as logical as the streets being wet, because it is raining

It was not a fact. It was a belief. Facts are proven through the scientific process. But ancient men and women hadn't figure out how yet. In fact, ancient men and women had a nasty habit of make the worst logical error: that if they believed something hard enough, it would be true.

Aristarchus of Samos proposed the helicentric model of the universe in 270 BC. Vedic Sanskrits have suggested people in India believed in a heliocentric universe as early as 9th century BC.

But the rest of humanity was more preoccupied with other pressing needs like staying warm, feed and alive to think much about such things.


M

 

[UnoMOTO]

Even if Deathclown66s logic is flawed in your method, Did he have a point in the original example that you didn't begin with all the information you needed to reach a proper conclusion?

 

[Danoff]

Even if Deathclown66s logic is flawed in your method, Did he have a point in the original example that you didn't begin with all the information you needed to reach a proper conclusion?

No. His point was off base because he didn't understand logic. If you understood it, you'd know that as well. Care to fill out my little example?

 

[UnoMOTO]

No. His point was off base because he didn't understand logic. If you understood it, you'd know that as well. Care to fill out my little example?

I'll bite How do you decide where your A starts?

 

[Danoff]

I'll bite How do you decide where your A starts?

Just try the first scenario.

First Scenario
- Assume that you have an apple
- Assume that you know with absolute certainty that all apples will rot.

What can you conclude logically from these assumptions and why?

 

[UnoMOTO]

Just try the first scenario.

no...I will not. Where do you determine the apple is true?

 

[Danoff]

no...I will not. Where do you determine the apple is true?

You have to assume that you have an apple and that apples rot. If you don't have any knowledge at all, there is very little you can do with logic. The point is to figure out how to logically draw conclusions from assumptions.

Seriously, give it a try, it isn't a trick question - I tried to make it easy. I won't bite.

 

[///M-Spec]

no...I will not. Where do you determine the apple is true?

The apple is an axiom. Axioms are something you accept or don't, but it forms the basis for all logical arguments. Aristotle states in his Law of Identity that A = A. There is no need to evaluate whether A exists or not because A is self evident.

In other words, you have to start with an apple or nothing can be known.


M

 

[UnoMOTO]

You have to assume that you have an apple and that apples rot. If you don't have any knowledge at all, there is very little you can do with logic. The point is to figure out how to logically draw conclusions from assumptions.

Seriously, give it a try, it isn't a trick question - I tried to make it easy. I won't bite.

You keep returning to the method. I understand the method. If your assumptions have holes big enough to drive a truck through, whats the point in logic for a spacific example?

 

[Danoff]

You keep returning to the method. I understand the method. If your assumptions have holes big enough to drive a truck through, whats the point in logic for a spacific example?

You're just not going to let me explain this to you are you. I'm trying to get you to participate in these examples so that I can separate different types of reasoning, their validity, and how assumptions can cause good logic to reach incorrect conclusions. You're right, assumptions can derail the entire process. But that's not logic, you have to come up with good assumptions on your own. Logic is used to operate on assumptions to generate a conclusion that is as sound as the assumptions themselves.

So are you going to play ball or not?

 

[///M-Spec]

You keep returning to the method. I understand the method. If your assumptions have holes big enough to drive a truck through, whats the point in logic for a spacific example?

Assuming an apple is just an apple is too big an assumption for you to live with? Why?


M

 

[UnoMOTO]

You're just not going to let me explain this to you are you. I'm trying to get you to participate in these examples so that I can separate different types of reasoning, their validity, and how assumptions can cause good logic to reach incorrect conclusions. You're right, assumptions can derail the entire process. *snip*

So are you going to play ball or not?

Thank you for admitting what you just did. I only started this because Deathclown66 blew up your argument and all you did was defend yourself with the method of logic rather than admitting you were wrong. I can't play the logic ball with you! You will squish me like a rotten apple.

 

[Danoff]

Thank you for admitting what you just did. I only started this because Deathclown66 blew up your argument and all you did was defend yourself with the method of logic rather than admitting you were wrong. I can't play the logic ball with you! You will squish me like a rotten apple.

Never once did DC argue what I just said. If he had, I wouldn't have argued with him in the first place. He essentially said that logic was flawed, which it is not.


I'll remind you that earlier I wrote the following:

The example you provided is a good example of how inductive reasoning can get you into trouble. Alternatively, one could come to the false conclusion you present using deductive reasoning and proper logic if the assumptions are flawed. Either way, logic itself is not to blame.

See there? I said the same thing there that I just said now, assumptions have to be correct for logic to work properly. But that's not a problem with logic itself.


I'm not looking to squish you (or him). I'm trying to teach you a little logic. I presented you with the simplest possible logical proof.

Assume A is true
Assume A->B
What can you conclude?

It doesn't get any easier than that. There's only one step - the answer. And it follows directly from the simplest logical operation.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Never once did DC argue what I just said. If he had, I wouldn't have argued with him in the first place. He essentially said that logic was flawed, which it is not.

See there? I said the same thing there that I just said now, assumptions have to be correct for logic to work properly. But that's not a problem with logic itself.


I'm not looking to squish you (or him). I'm trying to teach you a little logic. I presented you with the simplest possible logical proof.

Assume A is true
Assume A->B
What can you conclude?

It doesn't get any easier than that. There's only one step - the answer. And it follows directly from the simplest logical operation.

He was giving an example about god and the creation of things. He use an example of how logic can lead you to a inncorrect conclusion. He was right! you just admitted that. A logic lesson is off topic for the thread.

 

[Danoff]

He was giving an example about god and the creation of things. He use an example of how logic can lead you to a inncorrect conclusion. He was right! you just admitted that.

No he was completely and totally wrong. He gave examples of flawed logic leading you to incorrect conclusions. Then blamed logic for his own inability to distinguish proper reasoning from flawed reasoning.

I announced up front that logic doesn't fix improper assumptions. But that's not a flaw in reasoning, it's a flaw in the person who came up with the assumptions.

A logic lesson is off topic for the thread.

It's my thread.

 

[Deathclown66]

-----------------------------------------------------
First Scenario
1a) Assume that you have an apple
1b) Assume that you know with absolute certainty that all apples will rot.

What can you conclude logically from these assumptions and why?
-----------------------------------------------------
Next scenario
2a) Assume that you know for a fact that it is not the case that you do not have an orange.

What can you logically conclude from this assumption and why?

---------------------------------------------------
Next scenario
3a) Assume that every swan you have ever seen is white

What can you logically conclude from this assumption and why?
_________________________________

1. My apple will rot
2. I have an orange
3. Every swan I ever saw was white.

I hope that wasn't supposed to be hard.

Now, what you're getting at:
1. = deductive
2. = deductive again, I believe
3. = inductive (if i assumed all swans were white)


DO NOT USE QUOTE TAGS AROUND SOMETHING THE ORIGINAL POSTER DID NOT ACTUALLY WRITE

You need to re-visit my original post, and possibly read again, something, if you're going to keep with the posts that insinuate I've said things I haven't even remotely touched.
Example A. My saying Logical thought will not give you an answer, if you are equipped with the wrong information to start, ( i,e, the "apple", or "a", does NOT exist) is not the same as saying anything to the likes of "logic is flawed".
Take an intelligent moment, and actually find anywhere where I've said anything negative about logic, before you make another crap-post like this, because that really belongs in a dumpster in New Jersey somewhere.

No he was completely and totally wrong. He gave examples of flawed logic leading you to incorrect conclusions. Then blamed logic for his own inability to distinguish proper reasoning from flawed reasoning.

No, he was not.
He gave examples of logic based on false premise, something most religions and their followers do.
He did this as an attempt to explain to the smartest man on the planet, who has no tolerance for the illogical thinking of 90% of the world. To explain, that as smart as danoff likes to think of himself, that he doesn't realize that it is not a logic problem these people have, but instead simple ignorance / lack of education on these subjects.

I announced up front that logic doesn't fix improper assumptions. But that's not a flaw in reasoning, it's a flaw in the person who came up with the assumptions.

Quote yourself, please. I'd love to see it.
Considering that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you to no end, I find it hard that you could've been agreeing with me this whole time.