Poll: how biased are you?

[werepossum]

SNIP

I'm rather curious as to how he sees you. Is he completely besotted by your adulation and usefulness as a cheerleader? Does he instead stand partly apart, keeping you on hand for the times his words fail him and distancing himself from you when they do not? Or does he see you as a rather useless piece of flotsam?

I find cybersage a fairly sharp guy who's been around and understands the world. He's more conservative than am I so we're not always on the same side of an issue, but I respect him. I get no sense of adulation from him, nor do I consider him my cheerleader.

You may even be smarter than cybersage or myself. But you crapped on Wolf's thread (who is probably smarter than all three of us were there any objective method of testing intelligence) with a point so blatantly obvious as to be useless and then stretched it beyond all usefulness - thus, pretentious idiot. Just make your points and let your arguments stand on their own. Smart people will judge you on the basis of those arguments, and at the end of the day, the benefit of being thought the smartest person on a political board is exactly the same benefit of being thought the dumbest person on a political board - naught.

 

[dank69]

Everyone has some Bias even if they dont admit it. If you realize you have Bias it is easier to look past your learned attitudes and consider the other side. Logic is not always the answer to everything. Sometimes logic can even be used to back up bias trains of thought. For instance you could say one group of people are bad because everywhere they are there is a higher crime rate. You may even be able to prove this using logic and facts.

The bolded is 100% crock of shit. Only someone who does not understand logic would claim these things. Facts can be combined with false logic to 'prove' anything. True logic cannot be used to back up biased trains of thought if they are not truly logical. Your 'for instance' is a prime example of false logic. Not surprising that you think it is an example of valid use of logic to 'prove' something illogical.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

True logic cannot be used to back up biased trains of thought if they are not truly logical.

The error you make "no true Scotsman" is fun because there is no true logic in the social-sciences.

And so we've reached the end of our little debate: Everyone is always working entirely on bias.

 

[dank69]

The error you make "no true Scotsman" is fun because there is no true logic in the social-sciences.

And so we've reached the end of our little debate: Everyone is always working entirely on bias.

There is logic and there is opinion. Logic can't explain everything but it can help eliminate the false.

When I said true logic I meant true as in the opposite of false, not true as in ideal which is the meaning of true in the no true scotsman term.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There is logic and there is opinion. Logic can't explain everything but it can help eliminate the false.

When I said true logic I meant true as in the opposite of false, not true as in ideal which is the meaning of true in the no true scotsman term.

I hear you, now let's look at this statement:

True logic cannot be used to back up biased trains of thought if they are not truly logical.

This is, of course, false.

Logic, as set of systematic rules of false/true and exposure of contradictions can be used to back anything up. Why? Because the abstraction of true and false will tend to be, itself, be a false representation of the depth of the human experience.

When matters as complex as racism are involved the level of analysis is so abstract that simple "true/false" logic tables fail, as there is always nuance. This means that the abstraction of thinking in "logical" terms about highly complex subjects is, itself, illogical.


So clearly it can back up bias thinking, but also, clearly, good sound logic doesn't exist when it comes to the social sciences. We just imagine that our "common sense" (read biases) and "what we know" (read perversely abstractions of realty through the eyes of other people's biases) is enough to come to a "logical conclusion" (read, something so abstract and artificially distant from reality that I can pretend I have truth).

The assumption that some 'logical' conclusion can be draw regarding the complexity of human behavior, but that any false conclusion drawn was not 'logical', is self-referential in its elimination of that which is 'right'. You are only logical as long as you are right and we know something is right because it is logical. If we later find out something was wrong, it is revealed to have been illogical the entire time. Do you see how this proves nothing? On the fun-side it does mark directly with a theory I've been toying with regarding human cognition .

Logic only applies to word games of theory like the one we're engaged in now, or math.

 

[dank69]

I hear you, now let's look at this statement:

This is, of course, false.

Logic, as set of systematic rules of false/true and exposure of contradictions can be used to back anything up. Why? Because the abstraction of true and false will tend to be, itself, be a false representation of the depth of the human experience.

When matters as complex as racism are involved the level of analysis is so abstract that simple "true/false" logic tables fail, as there is always nuance. This means that the abstraction of thinking in "logical" terms about highly complex subjects is, itself, illogical.


So clearly it can back up bias thinking, but also, clearly, good sound logic doesn't exist when it comes to the social sciences. We just imagine that our "common sense" (read biases) and "what we know" (read perversely abstractions of realty through the eyes of other people's biases) is enough to come to a "logical conclusion" (read, something so abstract and artificially distant from reality that I can pretend I have truth).

The assumption that some 'logical' conclusion can be draw regarding the complexity of human behavior, but that any false conclusion drawn was not 'logical', is self-referential in its elimination of that which is 'right'. You are only logical as long as you are right and we know something is right because it is logical. If we later find out something was wrong, it is revealed to have been illogical the entire time. Do you see how this proves nothing? On the fun-side it does mark directly with a theory I've been toying with regarding human cognition .

Logic only applies to word games of theory like the one we're engaged in now, or math.

Can you give me an example of a sound logical argument that proves an illogical bias?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can you give me an example of a sound logical argument that proves an illogical bias?

I think you're confused.
There is no such thing as a logical proof in the social sciences. But there are many examples of people acting like they have some logical proof in the social-sciences and there-in trying to defend bigotry/common-sense. This is because accepting a premise (such as the givens in economics) allows you to make lots and lots of logical arguments (just based on false premises). The "logic" of accepting a false premise does not change how sound the logical argument is; just how true it is.

 

[dank69]

I think you're confused.
There is no such thing as a logical proof in the social sciences. But there are many examples of people acting like they have some logical proof in the social-sciences and there-in trying to defend bigotry/common-sense. This is because accepting a premise (such as the givens in economics) allows you to make lots and lots of logical arguments (just based on false premises). The "logic" of accepting a false premise does not change how sound the logical argument is; just how true it is.

Maybe I am communicating improperly then. When I said 'true logic' I meant 'proper logic based on true premises.' This is what cannot be used to back up illogical biases.

 

[nonlnear]

Maybe I am communicating improperly then. When I said 'true logic' I meant 'proper logic based on true premises.' This is what cannot be used to back up illogical biases.

Look hard enough and you will find "true" premises as hard to come by in the social sciences as logical proof. Maybe one day when there is a model of behavior built up from physical first principles we will be close enough to pretend it's a science, but until then it's all rhetorical sleight of hand. NTTAWWT.

 

[dank69]

Look hard enough and you will find "true" premises as hard to come by in the social sciences as logical proof. Maybe one day when there is a model of behavior built up from physical first principles we will be close enough to pretend it's a science, but until then it's all rhetorical sleight of hand. NTTAWWT.

I'm aware of that and do not dispute it. The only thing I am disputing is the claim that sound logic based on sound premises can be used to reinforce false claims or illogical biases.