My logic isn't - my logic is awesome!

But everyone else's is debatable

Everything is debatable!

it just warms my heart to see KikiPeeps still around. Shes amazing. Id debate her logic anyday of the week! oh yeah! jk you

On Thursday 1/15/09 - 11:24:02 PM Noichberg wrote: you

i mean no, it is not.

On Thursday 1/15/09 - 11:07:50 PM handys003 wrote: Everything is debatable!

QFT

Love the cartoons. And I agree, everything is debatable.

supposedly, hard logic as as undebateable as math.

However, some people find math debatable, so

Of course, if we're talking about epistemology, since there are many branches and one could take the stance of any perspective.

In terms of deductive reasoning (which some would argue is the only valid/"logical" form of logical reasoning), the conclusion is a *necessary* result of the premises, so there isn't really much way to debate it.

That doesn't mean the premises are true of course. Garbage in, garbage out, as the computer folk say.

Logic is always affected by one's bias.

And I was going to post a question like this.

On Friday 1/16/09 - 11:59:11 AM kickass9 wrote: Logic is always affected by one's bias.

not pure logic, though.

If I'm wrong, tell me.

That depends on what the logic is

Logic is an essential component in a debate. I don't know of any debate that doesn't compose of logic. So of course it is debateable, especially circular logic. It doesn't mean it has to be an absolute.

On Friday 1/16/09 - 10:42:52 AM pbnj wrote: Of course, if we're talking about epistemology, since there are many branches and one could take the stance of any perspective.

Epistemology isn't logic; it's a branch of philosophy.

On the question, debate does exist in logic. For example, paraconsistent logics are systems of logic that can "tolerate" contradictions (that is, they reject the principle of non-contradiction). These systems don't have many supporters, but such do exist. Also, there are various systems of modal logic, some of which are controversial - it is therefore debateable which is the right one (eg, S4, in which modality is not transitive across possible worlds, versus S5, in which it is).

However, "everyday" logic isn't debateable; it's needed even to formulate an argument for paraconsistent logic (and, in my opinion, that's one of the ways it undercuts itself, as a consequence).

Logic is debatable.

Facts aren't.

Darnit, kyry beat me to it.

I'll still cite the often used example to undermine basic sentential logic, though:
According to quantum logic, one can have P&(AvB) =/= (P&A)v(P&B). Have P represent the velocity of a particle, and A represent a position that particle could be holding, and B representing the negative of A. Given P as true, then the first side is true, but the latter is false as a consequence of the uncertainty principle. (The distributive law fails.)

Not that I'm well enough versed in different forms of logics to see that as more than a curiosity at this point, though.

On Friday 1/16/09 - 11:59:11 AM kickass9 wrote: Logic is always affected by one's bias.

On Friday 1/16/09 - 12:13:49 PM mynameismike wrote: not pure logic, though. If I'm wrong, tell me.

I see where you come from. But people might have different definitions of "pure logic".

no. at least not mine

On Thursday 1/15/09 - 11:07:50 PM handys003 wrote: Everything is debatable!

Agreed!