|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Jan 8, 2010 12:10:51 GMT
Thanks, I wasn't fighting for or against either way, and you are right, I was just pointing out the sometimes more important logical approach in a cold scientific way and nothing to do with human judgement as that can have flaws. You have a brilliant knack of saying something without saying anything.
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Jan 8, 2010 13:41:28 GMT
Perhaps Blackadder is actually an MP? ;D
morganp
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Jan 8, 2010 16:11:14 GMT
Morganp that reply made me laugh. have not replied to any of Blackadder`s post as quite frankly I cannot understand or follow them.
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jan 9, 2010 2:09:03 GMT
[All logical arguments depend on the assumptions you start out with. Choose one set of assumptions, and you get one conclusion. Choose different assumptions, and you get a different conclusion. When there are an infinite number of logical arguments - all of them equally valid (since they don't employ any known logical fallacies) - the only way for us to decide which conclusion is the best one is to use critical thinking. Your idea that critical thinking is inefficient, an inferior cousin to the simplicity of logic, is simply... errr, illogical. I'll come back to this pile of bo-licks! When I'm sober!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 9, 2010 10:33:52 GMT
I prefer drunk jigsaw
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Jan 23, 2010 23:56:00 GMT
I know what u mean about bol*ocks, because logic always follows a path. You do not choose it. Deciding and learning etc how water falls down a mountain only leads to one result. There is no more than one complete result. Logical fact. But there are lots of other factors calculated outside of this question to do with gravity laws and temp etc that slow the logical paths results down for the individual question, as stated previously.
So there is no variation on logic. Logic follows numbers and not preferrance. Sorry Cassus.
|
|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Jan 25, 2010 23:04:46 GMT
You appear to have confused the behaviour of water with the laws of logic and reason.
|
|
|
Post by paddyrex on Mar 17, 2010 0:27:46 GMT
I know this thread is pretty dead but I just stumbled on it. I wonder if blackadder was saying that critical thinkers, skeptics if you like, sometimes bypass the shortcuts that most people take in evaluating a situation? Heuristics allow people to jump to conclusions without a lot of rational debate. On a survival level this can be useful and will at times provide a correct and intuitive solution. At other times it will lead to false assumptions. Following a critical process may take longer than just accepting what appears to be, but is usually worth it in the end.
|
|
catharine
Egg
BadCast Reporter
BAA BAAAAAAA
Posts: 225
|
Post by catharine on Mar 17, 2010 18:58:57 GMT
Hi PaddyRex, In my view (not wanting to speak for Blackadder) that is a very cohereant summary of the point he was attempting to put across. Maybe you could have a crack at some of his other threads, I'd be interested to see the results Welcome to the forum by the by.
|
|