Boy, I'm going off the deep end on this one!

[Theophylact]

It seems to me that a lot of the issues in the world, or at least the futile arguments about them, arise from a singular error of logic.

In the real world we get into incredible debates about such things as “When does human life begin,” “What is obscenity,” “Is it ethical to execute the insane,” and “How much freedom of speech/religion/assembly is too much.” These are all legitimate questions, but the arguments about them are often absolutist: That is, since there is a continuum between the zygote and the adult, between the sane and the insane, between the obscene and the innocuous, between the seditious and the safe, no distinction can be made at all and a uniform standard must be applied.

But this is not merely foolish, it is absurd. It is equivalent to saying that because the colors form a continuous spectrum, there is no difference between red and green. A baby is not the same as a geezer, even if there is no obvious difference between someone who is a day short of twenty-six years old and the same person one day later.

I think the error comes from misunderstanding the “slippery slope” problem.

The classical form of the problem is stated as the “Paradox of the Bald Man”:

(1) It is obvious that a man with no hair at all is bald; (2) It is also obvious that a man who has only one hair more than a bald man is bald; (3) Therefore, all men are bald.

Induction requires that (3) must be a valid conclusion if (2) is true.

But it isn’t – so what’s the hitch?

The nature of the error, and the resolution of the paradox, is this: Similarity, unlike identity, is not transitive.

If A=B, and B=C, and C=D, then it is true that A=D. But if A is like B, and B is like C, and C is like D, it doesn’t follow that A is like D. The longer the chain, the more tenuous the relationship can be. And even if the differences between adjacent links are infinitesimal, with an infinite chain the ends are still arbitrarily far apart.

Defining a bright line does not solve the problem, in most cases even practically speaking. Look at the Florida election results; the standard for winning is to have one more vote than the next guy, which seems clear – but the statistical error in counting was larger than the vote difference. And consider the latest Supreme Court decision into account: if you can be executed if your IQ is 70, but not if it’s 69 – who thinks that makes sense?

Falsely imposing identity on a continuum is not cured by arbitrarily bisecting the continuum, either.

Basically, it boils down to this: human judgment cannot be replaced by an algorithm, especially in areas of ethics.

(If I don't get any response, I won't be the least bit surprised.)

[Warthog]

*whoosh*

Right over my head.

Okay...

Originally posted by Theophylact



The classical form of the problem is stated as the “Paradox of the Bald Man”:

(1) It is obvious that a man with no hair at all is bald; (2) It is also obvious that a man who has only one hair more than a bald man is bald; (3) Therefore, all men are bald.

Induction requires that (3) must be a valid conclusion if (2) is true.

But it isn’t – so what’s the hitch?

The nature of the error, and the resolution of the paradox, is this: Similarity, unlike identity, is not transitive.

If A=B, and B=C, and C=D, then it is true that A=D. But if A is like B, and B is like C, and C is like D, it doesn’t follow that A is like D. The longer the chain, the more tenuous the relationship can be. And even if the differences between adjacent links are infinitesimal, with an infinite chain the ends are still arbitrarily far apart.

whoa whoa whoa when you brought math into the speech i got lost

[capybara]

okay, i dont understand all that so just letme ask:
we have two murderers, one has IQ = 69 and one has IQ = 70. are you saying they should be treated
alike, differently, or what? why? i think
your saying, there should be no firm rule or arbitrary cut-off point, instead common sense should be used.
but that wont work: if theres no arbitrary rule about
how much income tax i should pay, is there a
commmon sense determination of how much income tax i should pay? who's common sense
rules? imho, my common sense says i shouldnt have to pay any taxes. and all murderers should be executed without an IQ test first.
.....SO: give a clear Xample of what your
saying here.

Originally posted by GroundZero3


whoa whoa whoa when you brought math into the speech i got lost

It's not math, it's Logic. Arguments can be proven true or false with Logic.

[Warthog]

Logic won't necessarily determine what capy is saying. Humans aren't yes and no objects, like Vulcans.

Originally posted by surreal

It's not math, it's Logic. Arguments can be proven true or false with Logic.

i know surreal was just kidding around!

come on fair lady! where is the humor at!

[originel]

i follow you (thanks go out to my World Religions and Philosephy Prof who taught me this type of logic when dealing with "issues"). very good point. of course that is the problem, how can you say "you are this, but you aren't" when it's really a field, and at the same time how can you go and not label because then you group unlike items (i think it's in human nature to label things and people anyway). so we end up at an empass, and if we were only logical beings, we would leave it at that, but being human we follow emotions when we can't follow logic (and even somtimes when we can). this of course leads to point bias (there is a technical pscychology word, but i forgot it as soon as i finished the exam ) so we end up arguing even if we start to see flaws in our arguments, or even that we are wrong altogether. we use logic to try and solve problems because it is the only way that we can effectively communicate an idea to someone else. emotions aren't really something we can communicate with words. like the idea of love. we all use the same words, but it means something different for each of us which is due to our expeireinces (or lack thereof) in love so how can we truly communicate our ideas about love, or any emotion for that matter (i admit i got the analogy from Waking Life as i just finished watching it, great movie when in a philosophical mood). but basically we can only communicate through logic which doesn't work for these types of problems because they are emotional in nature which we can't communicate. C'est la vie

[ILC]

Theophylact,

In trying to counter your post, I convinced myself that I agree with what you are saying.

However, I believe your answer is illogical on the simple basis that the majority of the world is illogical. Therefore, since the world is very rarely, if ever logical, limitations must be imposed, even if something is continuous.

ILC