Logic 102

According to Umberto Eco in The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, Holmes didn't use deductive logic, although he (or Conan Doyle) often said so. Holmes instead relied on a reverse form of reasoning which Aristotle (I think) called "Abduction." In adbuction you argue backward from the effect to the cause.

So you abduce from the type of footprint, to what kind of person made it. This calls for some imaginative input which need not be reasonable at all. What's more, although Holmes always got it right, it doesn't always work.

That would be interesting. And then I could maybe start a rant on why (some) Evolutionists use the same argument to try and confuse people into following them!

But I jst - I have no intention of going down that long and slippery road :-)

One argumentum ad hominem for you, plus one argumentum ad misericordium. Pretty good score
for just one comment!

Oops! Almost missed the argumentum ad baculum at the very beginning! Well done!

Phaedrus, I don't want to sound harsh, but we are commenting on a logic article. So how can you, in this context, present the following argument:

Celestina, if you continue to write articles like this your positive feedback score might go down due to you going over people's head.

I mean, make up your mind! This must be a Argumentum ad Verticallis! If it's going to go down, how can it go over people's heads? Unless you think we're all upside down!

:-)

Paddy, methinks you've missed something. ;-)

Ooble, maybe you missed the smiley at the end of my post :-)

Spock had a Ten Gallon Foil Hat

Point being, that a knowledge of logic is a very helpful thing. But you also have to know when to put it aside.

That is by far one of the best comments I have read so far (and there are a lot of good ones). There is a time and place for logic, and it is a wise man (or woman) who knows when that is and when it isn't. I think one of the reasons arguing pure logic with people elicits the response it does is because logic can be very cold, and humans are warm, emotional creatures. We make a lot of our decisions based on emotion rather than logic and when someone challenges us solely on the logical basis for those decisions it can irritate us.

While it might be nice to speculate how the world would be different if governmental and electoral decisions were based on logic alone, you would also have to discount just about the whole history of organized government and politics to do it. Government and politics are not about logic; they are about power, and power often cares little for logic.

Oh, what's a skater to do? =(

Poetry? Black roses? Skater != Emo. =P

I've always found goths to be a very insular crowd myself. Even when I was going out to goth clubs I only ever ended up talking with the 5 people I already knew there most of the time. I've heard the goth scene in NYC is large enough to be totally divided, where the groups that actually listen to goth don't mix with the groups who listen to industrial and don't mix with the 'vampire' people, etc. Where are you from Celestina? My experiences were all in DC.

Haha, the Cure, hell yeah!

Most of the goths I knew were sort of the cross-over group who went to raves and goth clubs. A lot of the long time goth DJs in DC ended up getting into spinning house and techno at raves, which was kind of weird. I never really dressed up much for going to a goth club, just an old industrial shirt and a collar, sometimes some eyeliner.

Me a few years ago.

Celestina, you say your kid is eight. Would you like to enlighten us on what your style was when
you were, say, 10?

Celestina, definitely encourage your kid in his pirate ways. As the church of the flying spaghetti monster points out, there's an inverse relationship between the falling number of pirates and the rise of global temperatures.

I believe the children are our future. Especially the pirate children :)

Well, Celestina, how very sweet of you to ask! Let me see; it was long ago and far away, and my
recollection of myself at 10 is a little hazy. I seem to remember that I was somewhat chunky,
with stringy hair, and a habit of trying to hide my Mum's bargain basement "finds" for me in the back of my closet in hopes she would forget about them. (I still shudder at the sight of anything chartreuse!) I spent a lot of time alone, or reading, or dreaming daydreams. I was a devout follower, and would espouse almost any cause to stay friends with the girls I ran around with. I hated Girl Scouts, and still hate the idea of weaving mats or any other such "deedy" work, having been born an unreformable manual idiot. I was totally obsessed with the mystery of boys, and I had a boyfriend, but was terribly shocked when he tried to kiss me once. I was given to asking my parents embarrassing questions in front of their friends and/or family. (I'll never forget the look on my Mum's face when I marched into my grandmother's living room and, in front of various aunts, uncles, and whatnots, asked her what "rape" means, explaining that the dictionary definition didn't really explain it to me. She, of course, was of a generation that simply did not discuss sex in "polite" company.) That's about all I remember about when I was ten. However, you will be glad to know that time has improved things greatly. I now understand a number of things I didn't then, including what rape means and that keeping your friends is not nearly as important as having your own opinions. Oh, and the mystery of the opposite sex was exploded long ago; somewhere along the way, I learned that boys are not significantly different from girls, except for having slightly different equipment. Unfortunately, I am still chunky and still have stringy hair. However, all things considered, I like me a lot better than I did when I was ten!

Cassandra- Thank you for your work. Your contributions are making me and I'm sure many others, smarter.
For one reason or another I spend a great deal of time in the streets of the world watching people.
You mention the high maintenance factor inherent in gothicity.
The most astonishing commitment I have witnessed to the vaguely nihilistic, casually overdressed world of radiant inverse optimism was in Perth, Australia, the most isolated city in the world built on the edge of a vast desert. Temperatures hover around 120/45 in the daytime in the summer and to stand about looking unaffected by anything other than your own ennui while wearing large black shin high boots and a buttoned full length black leather trenchcoat in these conditions evoked in me a great respect for the immense effort it so obviously took to simply survive your chosen social position.
I felt the same respect for passing nuns.

My mistake, My comments were directed to you Celestina, I'm lazy, I cut and paste peoples names instead of spelling them and scrolled up and grabbed the first 'C' woman I found.
I hope to slowly improve as I participate more here. Sorry also Cassandra for potentially bruising your context.

No problem, cowbow. I find it most flattering to be confused with Celestina!

Following this logic piece of 'sentencing' is that we should reward the criminal for taking out the clerk at the liquor store, rendering the store closed for a few days. Because in the end, society was a little bit better due to the loss of some drunk drivers, abusive drunks, and so on...

Please note - this has no bearing on my personal ideas about the justice system. I'm just twisting this logic to my own accord.

Oh and PS - Great piece (s).

And let's not forget that there is a humongous loss to society in the death of the clerk.

I certainly understand that from a purely legal perspective, you are right - those considerations are to be taken up in the sentencing phase of the trial.

But one must remember that each citizen has a higher moral obligation than a legal obligation. And to convict someone of a crime, if that person has done nothing wrong - as is the case in most drug cases - is morally reprehensible, regardless of the principles of rule of law, and regardless of the clear legal obligation that a juror may have to determine matters of fact alone.

After all, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to accomplish justice - and to place the specific legal obligations before that purpose in terms of priority is really putting the cart before the horse.

I agree with you, in cases where there is specific harm to another person, in most cases.

There is a doctrine called jury nullification that opposes this point of view. The point of jury nullification is that if a law is grossly unjust, jurors can simply refuse to convict in those cases, with the eventual effect that the cases stop being brought.

From wikipedia:

Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds. Historically, examples include the perceived unjustness of the law or its application, the race of a party or accuser, or the jury's own prejudices.

Jury nullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not ordinarily described as a right. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition on retrying criminal defendants after an acquittal (see related topic Double jeopardy).

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as an abuse of the right to a trial by jury that undermines the law and violates the oath sworn to by jurors. There are fears that nullification could be used to permit violence against unpopular minorities or women. Some argue that jury nullification could be used to nullify important defendants' rights, such as the Fifth Amendment right not to testify or the right of self-defense. (While supporters argue that jury nullification can be used only to acquit and not to convict because a judge must set aside a conviction that is clearly at odds with the law and the facts, the fact that jury verdicts are treated with great deference in United States courts means that the safeguards are not absolute and a jury that dislikes a defendant has the ability to convict an innocent defendant through nullification.)

Nevertheless, few doubt the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are two primary issues raised by jury nullification.

* First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify. * Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.

I'd personally never convict anyone of breaking any law that I thought was unconstitutional. Realistically this is the only time anyone has any input into the system.

*pushes her plate of grits over to Celestina's place at the table*

You can have mine, I never could develop a taste for 'em, even after trying to eat them in myriad different configurations for three years. But hush puppies... that's good stuff.

wherever you go in america, you can always find a Denny's

And you consider that a good thing? :|

I seriously tried to like grits... I lived in South Carolina for three years and fit in pretty well (to the point where my sister, SwampQueen, didn't recognize my voice on the phone)... but grits? I tried them every which way anybody ever heard of fixing them, and still... they tasted like sand to me. *shrugs*

I went surf fishing, crabbing, mussel-digging, crawfish-catching... but grits? Never did learn to like them.

mmmmmm Grits, there was a place in Grand Falls, New Brunswick for a while called "Gritz" that basically was denny's with 23972489239 more types of grits. SOOOOOOO good. Not sure if it's still there.

I like my grits thick enough for the spoon to stand up in, and with lots and lots of cheese. Yummy. I hate restaurants that have runny snot looking grits.

When eating grits, the sensation of chewing on sand indicates they're garden-variety, corn grits. When eating grits provides the sensation of enjoying a creamy sort of ambrosia, they're more likely to be hominy grits.

"What's the difference? Whether corn or hominy, maize is maize!"

No need to get emotional. The difference: Hominy is treated corn¹.

...the process is called nixtamalization, and removes the germ and the hard outer hull from the kernels, making them more palatable, easier to digest, and easier to process. It also alters the flavor in a way that many consider to be an improvement.

Logical conclusion: When ordering grits, the diner should ascertain which variety is actually on the menu - substandard corn grits or the more delectable hominy grits. Then, the logical fallacy that eating any kind of grits is akin to eating sand is somewhat mitigated.

But wait... does exploring the logical fallacy make this argument for distinction a valid argument or an ad hominem? *snicker*

¹ en. wikipedia .org/wiki/Hominy

I'm glad you've joined. I'm hoping to have an army of logical thinkers to denounce the fallacies of other viners, the media and politicians. You never know, we may convince some people that logical thinking is the way to go.