If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4900 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.
For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.
Enjoy!!!!!!
If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!
Logic: n. being skilled in accurate reasoning
Reason: v. to try to achieve an accurate (righta conclusion(s) and/or judgment(s)) and/ or (inference(s) from a fact(s)) and/or (hypothesis(s) and/or opinion(s)) and/or belief(s) with the use of the probabilities between cause(s) and effect(s) correspondences and/or set(s) and subset(s) correspondences
There should be no “logical” ARGUMENTS filled with emotional bias but they should rather be “logical” DISCUSSIONS with as little emotion as possible expressed during the exchange of propositions and conclusions or judgments. An argument or attack on someone’s opinions mimics the violence of physical conflict where any tactic is acceptable as long as you come out the winner and not loser. The winner take all and the loser is left with nothing mentality must be absent from any “logical” discussion and the end result may actually not be certainty but a probability of one or more conclusions or judgments or no conclusions or judgments at all.
The domain of logical thinking is an attempt at establishing objective cause and effect relationships which science excels in because of mathematics. Without the use of mathematics or merely using statistical probabilities, propositions and conclusions or causes and effects can’t be proved conclusively because they frequently can’t be repeated experimentally in the lab with identical results.
WHAT are we discussing logically? Is it possible to discuss everything logically or does logic have its limitations in everyday usage since so few humans think logically in the subjective emotionally biased liberal arts world which we are living in. The best logical usage is with objectivity and it is highly improbable that you will come up with an agreed upon logical conclusion or judgement discussing strongly held subjective emotionally biased opinions or beliefs.
There are errors in accurate reasoning or logic which should be avoided as much as possible. If you are arguing then making these reasoning errors will sometimes increase the probability that the argument will increase in emotional intensity and get very angry. Here is a list of 9 discussion and/or argument errors or 9 don’t dos.
Don’t attack a human’s character and only discuss a character flaw if it seems to be the primary reason for the discussion and/or problem to be solved.
Don’t misrepresent and/or exaggerate the opposing opinion hoping to make it easier to refute by intentionally and unjustly trying to make it less believable.
Don’t use subsets to represent the set.
Don’t always assume that just because something occurred before in time then it must always be the cause.
Don’t always insist that your conclusion and/or judgement is the only one possibility even though that is frequently your goal or desire.
Don’t ask the human with the opposing opinion to do your convincing responsibility for you which is erroneously called the burden of proof because you are really not proving anything but merely trying to persuade with plausible reasons and/or communications.
Don’t assume a cause and effect relationship unless there is a probable logical connection or correspondence between them based on some historical precedence or experience. New cause effect discoveries in human behavior are highly improbable.
Don’t automatically assume that the popularity of the proposition and conclusion or the opinion makes it true.
Don’t always assume that an authority figure is infallible or has or is always communicating truthful facts or opinions. If it is a respected and truthful authority figure based on prior experience most of the time then don’t question everything and every time he or she says something, especially on unimportant matters.
If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 1400 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.
For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.
Enjoy!!!!!!
If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!
Reason: v. to try to achieve an accurate (righta conclusion(s) and/or judgment(s)) and/ or (inference(s) from a fact(s)) and/or (hypothesis(s)) and/or opinion(s)) and/or belief(s) and/or sensing with the use of the probabilities between cause(s) and effect(s) correspondences and/or set(s) and subset(s) correspondences
Most unscientific reasoning tries to connect a cause and effect or events in a probabilistic way using times as reference points.
The most successful reasoning exists in science using the scientific method of reasoning with the aid of mathematics and the concepts of sets, subsets, and variables. The results of this reasoning is frequently certainty and a 100% probability or a statistical numerical probability.
In human behavior and analysis of events there is a certain probability that exists between a cause and an effect or between relatable or corresponding events.
Deductive reasoning starts with a cause or causes and tries to deduce what the possible effects might be based on historical precedent or direct observation. Sometimes the effect or effects become a cause or causes in a chain or series of cause effect relationships or correspondences.
Inductive reasoning starts with an effect or effects and tries to determine what the cause or causes might have been or are based on historical precedent or observation.
Factual events which can be verified or known to exist are the most useful in making cause effect relationships or correspondences but some reasoning about behavior is frequently based upon historical precedents of the parties involved.
Some probabilistic conclusions are made about events which exist without seeming causes but appear to be largely random in nature.
If a human has an impeccable reputation for honesty then the probability that he is lying is minimal. Similarly there is a high probability that one with a bad reputation is probably lying about something.
If someone has been late for work about once a month for the past six months then the probability that he will be late about once a month for the following six months is relatively high based on historical precedent.
If you define sympathy as a subset of empathy then you can conclude that there are more empathetic behaviors than sympathetic ones although the actual number may not be known. This kind of reasoning involves synthesis or analysis of a set and subsets and then making conclusions about the relationships between the set and subsets.
CONCLUSION:
Reasoning is communications about the probabilities between a cause(s) and an effect(s) or between events and communications about the relationships or correspondences between a set and its subsets or the relationships or correspondences between the subsets themselves.
Probability communications are made about the past, present, and future. Historical precedent and/or direct observations of facts are frequently the most useful in making predictions about the future.
If you reason without an understanding of probabilities, sets and subsets, and historical facts or accurate observation of facts then your reasoning ability is very bad and frequently biased by intuitive emotional reactions which are frequently inaccurate.
If you can predict emotional states of a human by observation and then control or change the emotions and behavior in a predictable way then you are using reasoning ability.
It is no wonder that politics uses very little reasoning or logic but mostly appeals to strong emotional beliefs or opinions. Humans use very little reasoning when interacting with new acquaintances but frequently make biased stereotypical conclusions about other humans based on scant information or facts which results in much misunderstanding and conflict
If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, approximately 600 so far, and one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.
Enjoy!!!!!!
uldissprogis 