Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[sanabas]

I'm estewing logic students not logic as such if you are any example then you lost the ability to think when you took up logic, and I'm not going to play your mindless facile games with~ symbols I can barely find on my keyboard let alone care to use, if the argument doesn't stand say so, or just say clarify, I'm not going to resort to talking logo BS everytime I have to make a point, the fact is when stated the comment was a logical fallacy now you can play with that however you like, but it was and it still is.

Your argument doesn't stand, I did say so. Your reply to that was essentially "I don't care about your actual logic, it's silly and pointless, the original statement is a logical fallacy because I say it's a logical fallacy"

Most of your arguments are word salad, people say clarify, you reply with "I don't understand why you need it spelt out since you know perfectly well what a non sequitor is?" or "Since you can't work out anything unless it's presented in some pointless arbitrary fashoin, well I'm sorry I tried to explain it and you wouldn't accept it in either plain english or BS logic form".

You may wish to look up facile while you have the dictionary handy too.

How is "Really I am never going to study logic, ... what a waste of time." an indictment of logic students rather than logic itself?

Now can we move on? Look the wiki article and the dictionary definition are the same thing? Good God! The only difference is one is in context with history the other is todays most commonly held definition? They are the same, oh dear this is hard work.

They are not the same. The second definition in wiki is the same as #9 from the dictionary. The others are different.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you average?

I never ever claimed to be anything but, even earlier in this thread.

So you* admit that your* "opinion" might be wrong, and that it is perfectly valid for me* to call Sidhe* the Rene Descartes* of his* time, regardless of the obvious fact that he* hasn't produced anything even close to the level of insight that was produced by Descartes*, or even Tolstoy*? If Sidhe* (take special note of the * ) thinks that Sidhe* is an intellectual, then who are you* to question that? Since the subject of "intellectualism" is, according to you*, merely an "opinion", who are you* to question the opinions of others? Can't you* just accept that Sidhe* thinks he*'s an intellectual (under his* own subjective definitions) and move on?

If you are such a fanboi that you think he is Rene Descartes/Tolstoy and John Lennon all rolled into one, thats your business. Frankly, I dont see it. And you ask who am I? Please read the thread. I address that earlier. I dont presume to be anything other than my peers think of me. By the way, CFC OT exists to discuss opinions and questioning the opinion of others is something we do everyday - you are doing it with me this very moment. Also, why should I be the person 'to move on'? Isnt that the burden of someone who has asked for an opinion and got it?

 

[brennan]

OK, so that is saying that A->B is false. But there's nothing wrong with the logic, you're disagreeing with one of the assumptions.

Since your assumptions B & C depend upon opinion rather than definition I would say they could be categorised as fallacious: either appeal to majority or to authority.

erely opinion. It's what intellectual means to me. If I want to talk about someone employed as a writer, teacher, lecturer, etc, I'll call them writer, teacher, lecturer, etc. I also know people employed in jobs like that with inferior intellects, and worthy of very little respect. I wouldn't use #7 by itself, because I think there's very little substance to it.

Hmm, Mobboss (I think) said #7 could apply to 'anyone who ever read a book'. I think there's rather more to it than that: "7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.". Anyone can read a Steven King novel, but not everyone chooses to read philosophical texts (as an example) purely out of an interest in abstract knowledge.

 

[Gogf]

Since your assumptions B & C depend upon opinion rather than definition I would say they could be categorised as fallacious: either appeal to majority or to authority.

B and C were not assumptions. A->B and C->~B were the only two assumptions he made. It looks, to me, like you are saying that A->B is a false assumption.

 

[brennan]

How does sanabas's logic not stand?

I would think that the ~ is one of the most basic concepts in logic. It means "not." I learned this in geometry class in 9th grade.

Funny, i'd never seen it before. At school, college and university i've only ever seen 'not a' expressed in a-bar format. (An 'a' with a bar over it.) How do you show De Morgan's theorem in that format?

 

[Gogf]

Funny, i'd never seen it before. At school, college and university i've only ever seen 'not a' expressed in a-bar format. (An 'a' with a bar over it.) How do you show De Morgan's theorem in that format?

I am still a high school student, so I have never taken a logic course or learned what De Morgan's Theorem is.

Perhaps this is the computer shorthand for "not" because you cannot put a bar over a letter on a computer?

 

[brennan]

B and C were not assumptions.

I think that's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I still haven't posted what I consider an intellectual to be. However, I think "someone who is respected for their intellect" is the best definition that has been posted in this thread yet.

I like that, and I'm also charmed by the more vague "someone who accumulates and spreads knowledge for its own sake".

As to symbols you won't find on a keyboard, try the proper logical not, ¬. ~ is a diacritic for letters such as õ and ñ, and as such it's usually placed near ^ (another diacritic which serves double duty as exponent notation), but ¬ is generally harder to find. It's located at Shift AltGr \ on my keyboard.

How do you show De Morgan's theorem in that format?

In my textbook on discrete mathematics, De Morgan's laws have two versions, one for sets (which uses A-bar, B-bar) and one for logic, which uses ¬p. De Morgan's laws for logic are given as:
¬(p /\ q) == ¬p \/ ¬q
¬(p \/ q) == ¬p /\ ¬q
(Couldn't find "and" or "or" symbols, used pairs of slashes.)

 

[sanabas]

OK how about an IQ over 140, now I can't prove it frankly I couldn't care less as it's the most meaning statistic in the history of definitions, now I fit two, and yes we've raised this before, you really should read the whole thread next time. Does that make me intelectual and an intelectual, 3 and 7? Does being part of the literati? I think you'll find it does and no your logic is spurious.

The fact that you've again confused genius and intellectual, and talk about #3 from the dictionary definition of one, and #7 from the dictionary definition of the other, as though they come from the same definition, and how now you fit 2 of the definitions seems a clear indication you fit neither definition. It's funny how someone derides IQ as a measure of anything in the same sentence as they try and start a pissing contest about who has the higher IQ. A high IQ is useful for feeding the ego of those who need it fed. A high IQ is useful for impressing those too stupid to look at less superficial things. A high IQ is useful for joining MENSA, which might let you meet some interesting people, but is mostly useful for resume filler for the purposes of impressing those too stupid to look at less superficial things.

Your intelligence level shines through loud and clear via your posts, without you needing to attach an IQ number to it.

It's simply this answer this question.

Given the definition of intelectual do you think that whether someone can persuade someone else that they are or are not an intellectual has any bearing on whether they are or are not in fact an intellectual?

Yes. Those who could persuade someone that they're an intellectual probably are, and do not need to waste time trying to persuade people of it. Those who need to try and persuade people probably aren't, are probably insecure/have an inflated opinion of their own intelligence, and are probably unable to persuade anyone but other deluded, insecure, 'look at me! I'm clever!" types. They spend far more time telling each other how clever they are than they do actually doing anything clever. A large percentage of MENSA members are very good at it.

Yes/No that's all I want if yes please explain if not can we continue, we've already done this anyway it's quite obvoius that if Descartes claimed he was an intelectual and no one believed him, that would not make him a non-intelectual by default? What are you trying to say?

Because Descartes was an intellectual, he didn't have to try and waste time convincing others of his intelligence, or of his intellectual credentials, he simply sat down and cranked out some big thoughts, and some excellent maths. I just really don't know how much simpler I can make it.

We've had about 8 pages of people just denying reality over and over again, whilst it was rather fun at first now it's just an excercise in continued sophistry, and honestly I take no pleasure in the embarassing lengths people will go to, to maintain black is white.

Please try and use words you know the meaning of, instead of adding them to your posts because they sound good. Facile, spurious, sophistry, fallacy are all good words, that don't deserve what you're doing to them. Or do you disdain vocabulary the same way you disdain logic?

I still haven't posted what I consider an intellectual to be. However, I think "someone who is respected for their intellect" is the best definition that has been posted in this thread yet.

Thanks mate.

 

[Sidhe]

How does sanabas's logic not stand?

I would think that the ~ is one of the most basic concepts in logic. It means "not." I learned this in geometry class in 9th grade.

Are you saying that saying if you can't prove your an intellectual you aren't one is not a non sequitor also, , ah screw this I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who can't even get the basic concept of fallacy without resorting to this short hand, no one learns logic in England untill University or they didn't in my day, and I can see why, it's a total waste of time if your guys are any indication of applied logic skills?

No offense but your really not making any sense here, and until someone just fesses up that the statment was a logical fallacy I don't think you're going to, it just is, look at in context it's nonsense. Even without resorting to calling it a non sequitor it's patently rubbish, where in the definition does it say your not one if you can't convince some teenagers on an internet forum then you aren't? Where tell me?

Or if Jesus says he's the son of God and no one believes him he is not, with the proviso that he is in fact the Son of God, it's a simillar thing.

Now whether you believe me or not has no bearing on whether that statement is a logical fallacy or not it just is OK get it in there, it's a load of old cock and bull.

A persons legitemacy as x does not stand or fall on the opinions of group y this is a resort to popularity.

Where x is true or false.

Neither does a persons fundamental verracity rest on whether anyone believes him or not.

In other words if no one believes Jesus can walk on water, and he already has, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the verracity of the statement? K? That's the last I'm going to say about it, I think my patience is just about used up here, and this isn't getting the discussion anywhere, just suck it up and say you were wrong.

 

[Gogf]

I think that's the point I was trying to make.

Then you're misinterpreting his argument. The first three lines of his argument were the definition of the variables. His actual argument begins with the first assumption that A->B.

 

[Gogf]

I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who can't even get the basic concept of fallacy without resorting to geology

I did not, at any time in my post "resort to geology."

 

[MobBoss]

Hmm, Mobboss (I think) said #7 could apply to 'anyone who ever read a book'. I think there's rather more to it than that: "7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.". Anyone can read a Steven King novel, but not everyone chooses to read philosophical texts (as an example) purely out of an interest in abstract knowledge.

To clarify, I also said that #7 to be so broad a definition as to be hardly worthy. If that is your standard, and you ignore the others listed there, then I humbly submit that someone who studies Stephan King and the nuances of his literature is just as much an intellectual as someone who reads a 'philosophical text'. Indeed, there are probably many that would define Kings works as 'philosophical texts'.

And no one answered my earlier question that under that definition, does it suffice to merely meet one specification to be an 'intellectual' or should you have to meet all of them? If you are under the opinion that the minimum serves, then we are all intellectuals here and my premise that certain people are average holds true. If you are under the opinion that all the specifications should be met to be considered intellectual, then very few people here could be described as truly intellectual - which I also claim.

So which is it?

 

[RedWolf]

Would true intellectuals really be bickering like children over who is and who is not an intellectual?

 

[brennan]

Perhaps this is the computer shorthand for "not" because you cannot put a bar over a letter on a computer?

Possibly, or I was wondering if it might be a US thing.

De Morgan's is used a lot in Boolean algebra: ~(a.b)=a+b it's really easy to show -even in long strings- using the bar notation, but it strikes me that it would be very clumsy to show using the tilde (~) format. (It get's nested a lot when you try and reduce to NANDs).

 

[Sidhe]

Would true intellectuals really be bickering like children over who is and who is not an intellectual?

It's not the issue actually it's just someone made a logical fallacy ages ago so we're still discussing it? Frankly to be honest the issue is the OP, but people are to stubborn to accept they've been talking arse candy for the last five pages.

I'm not even going to bother any more, whether I'm an intellectual because I meet two of the criteria or 8 or none has ceased to have any interest to me whatsoever, and by extension so is the logical fallacy issue. I think we've pretty much exhausted reason here.

By the way Mob Boss you don't have to meet them all that's just silly, go look up a few words, you'll se what I mean, you have to meet at least 1, but your more likely to be the archetype if you meet them all.

Most intellectuals I know are highly emotional people, the act of emotionless rationilisation is that which they apply to their science or study, they don't go round debating like emotionless automatons, you'd possibly know this if you ever met any, but since to most people they are virtual Gods instead of just academics/scholars and scientists you probably will never meet one and neither will they, I feel a strange sort of pity and I can't figure out why?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you saying that saying if you can't prove your an intellectual you aren't one is not a non sequitor also, , ah screw this I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who can't even get the basic concept of fallacy without resorting to this short hand, no one learns logic in England untill University or they didn't in my day, and I can see why, it's a total waste of time if your guys are any indication of applied logic skills?

I humbly offer the following link as proof you are indeed someone who cant get the basic concept of fallacy and are thus not an intellectual.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5087521&postcount=32

In that thread, Sidhe had commented, and I paraphrase "OJ proves that you can commit black on black crime if you are rich". I corrected him in that OJs wife was white...not black. And that was his response. I humbly submit it as evidence that someone here has no idea of what logical fallacy is or is not.

Or if Jesus says he's the son of God and no one believes him he is not, with the proviso that he is in fact the Son of God, it's a simillar thing.

However, Jesus was known to perform a miracle every now and then to prove the disenters wrong.

just suck it up and say you were wrong.

Heh, why suggest this when you dont do the same? Was OJs dead wife white or black?

 

[Mise]

Since I don't know anything about formal logic, is it true that pretty well every logical statement about 2 sets can be represented by 2 circles and a box?

 

[sanabas]

Funny, i'd never seen it before. At school, college and university i've only ever seen 'not a' expressed in a-bar format. (An 'a' with a bar over it.) How do you show De Morgan's theorem in that format?

What Erik said. When I first did logic in high school I was taught the tilde (~) to represent 'not', possibly because that was the easiest one to print for tests. Not sure. When I did formal logic at uni, I learnt different notation, but when scribbling stuff down myself I still tend to use ~, because it's the first one I learnt, and also because it's the easiest to type on a keyboard.

Completely off-topic, but I have a bad habit of confusing De Morgan & De Moivre. I have no problems with either theory, I just tend to call them by their wrong name when I'm not paying attention.

As for my argument, there's only two assumptions. A->B, C->~B. If your intellect is worthy of respect, it will be respected due to your actions, words & thoughts, without an overt effort by you to garner respect. If you need to make an effort for the express purpose of getting people to respect you, then you haven't earnt that respect through your actions, words & thoughts.

I like that, and I'm also charmed by the more vague "someone who accumulates and spreads knowledge for its own sake".

Interesting. I'll have to think about that one some more.

no one learns logic in England untill university or they didn't in my day, and I can see why, it's a total waste of time if your guys are any indication of applied logic skills? No offense but your really not making any sense here, and until someone just fesses up that the statment was a logical fallacy

Once again, if you see logic as a total waste of time, and something you never intend to learn, how on earth are you qualified to critique the logic used by anybody else?

 

[Sidhe]

I humbly offer the following link as proof you are indeed someone who cant get the basic concept of fallacy and are thus not an intellectual.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5087521&postcount=32

In that thread, Sidhe had commented, and I paraphrase "OJ proves that you can commit black on black crime if you are rich". I corrected him in that OJs wife was white...not black. And that was his response. I humbly submit it as evidence that someone here has no idea of what logical fallacy is or is not.

So if Stephen Hawking mistakenly claims that he thinks OJ's wife is black and she is in fact white that makes Stephen Hawking not an intellectual, I humbly submit that your talking nonsense

I already said I was mistaken are you on the same planet today, and I fail to see why not knowing who she was has any bearing in this thread anyway?

Once again, if you see logic as a total waste of time, and something you never intend to learn, how on earth are you qualified to critique the logic used by anybody else?

Appeal to authority: it is isn't it, your saying just because you haven't learnt x you can't claim something is illogical, just because you happen to have a PhD in logic does not mean you can not be wrong and you are, nor that I can point out the flaw in Downtown's statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The reason why I don't wish to learn logic is a) it sounds boring b) Mise aptly demonstrates you don't need it to learn physics, since he hasn't and it sounds like a waste of time and it wouldn't benefit me, it's probably not even in the English curriculum cause it's only usefull to a particular type of degree/degrees. In other words it's useless except in philosophy and maybe computer studies?