The corruptible nature of logic?

[SomeRandom]

So, you guys are familiar with the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” yeah?

I remember them going on stage to humiliate (whether intentionally or not) their opponents, using logic and reason.

It was probably more spectacle than actual debate in hindsight. Ostensibly they wanted to champion intellectualism and scientific literacy. Which is pretty noble, right?

But I’ve noticed that people, public figure and laymen alike, seem to use logic more as a bludgeon than a tool for interpreting reality. They pick an ideal to live and die by (often freedom of speech, if I’m honest.) Proudly boasting at how they are using logic and reason to battle against X.
Think figures like Jordan Peterson, for example. Or I dunno Ben Shapiro.

But there also seems to be very little nuance to the world views being championed, imo. It’s just peacocking.
The aesthetics of logic and reason but without any real humanity to it. I see it in some New Atheism groups. Logic and reason they claim. But still try desperately to justify old hierarchies and human prejudices.
It’s almost dogmatic. And ends up being used to dehumanise their “opponents.” Effectively eliminating empathy and becoming an exercise in futility.
It becomes a sport instead of a debate. More about winning. I saw this happen in 2016, with many “owning the libs/SJWs” with logic and reason. But no actual debate, no free exchange of ideas. Even though that was allegedly a desired goal.

What are your thoughts?
Because I feel like some people are using “logic and reason” as preaching tools rather than utilising their benefits. Does that make sense?

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, you guys are familiar with the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” yeah?

I remember them going on stage to humiliate (whether intentionally or not) their opponents, using logic and reason.

It was probably more spectacle than actual debate in hindsight. Ostensibly they wanted to champion intellectualism and scientific literacy. Which is pretty noble, right?

But I’ve noticed that people, public figure and laymen alike, seem to use logic more as a bludgeon than a tool for interpreting reality. They pick an ideal to live and die by (often freedom of speech, if I’m honest.) Proudly boasting at how they are using logic and reason to battle against X.
Think figures like Jordan Peterson, for example. Or I dunno Ben Shapiro.

But there also seems to be very little nuance to the world views being championed, imo. It’s just peacocking.
The aesthetics of logic and reason but without any real humanity to it. I see it in some New Atheism groups. Logic and reason they claim. But still try desperately to justify old hierarchies and human prejudices.
It’s almost dogmatic. And ends up being used to dehumanise their “opponents.” Effectively eliminating empathy and becoming an exercise in futility.
It becomes a sport instead of a debate. More about winning. I saw this happen in 2016, with many “owning the libs/SJWs” with logic and reason. But no actual debate, no free exchange of ideas. Even though that was allegedly a desired goal.

What are your thoughts?
Because I feel like some people are using “logic and reason” as preaching tools rather than utilising their benefits. Does that make sense?

I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me. Care to cite an example of what you're talking about?

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me. Care to cite an example of what you're talking about?

I’m afraid this will be very anecdotal, as this is based more on my interactions with various crowds more than anything.

I suppose like when JK Rowling made her opinions on trans individuals known. Which is her right to do so. I don’t really care one way or the other personally. And the “Twitter mob” howled her down, which was stupid but Twitter sucks. So eh.
Then in response was this letter signed by various authors to “stop the cancel culture.”
But I don’t think that free speech was being defended, it just appeared that way. (Maybe media manipulated it somewhat, idk.)
This response wasn’t an open invitation for the “free exchange of ideas.” Not really. It was just used as a smug way to point to those “lousy wokescolds.” And proclaim themselves the true champions of free speech. (But I mean it’s Twitter, who cares?)
Maybe some of those peeps were earnest, I’m just saying. People seem to get so caught up in “being right” that discussion breaks down.
JK Rowling signs letter warning over free speech after trans row - ABC News

 

[Revoltingest]

Logic & being right are no excuse to be mean.

 

[SomeRandom]

Logic & being right are no excuse to be mean.

I agree. But I saw it happen many times.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But I saw it happen many times.

There are a whole lotta mean people out there.

 

[Nakosis]

Logic & being right are no excuse to be mean.

They don't get attention or revenue by being nice.

If they wants to play nice they ought to look into another line of work.

Not so much logic as debate skill. They are not there to find common ground, unless it lets them win the debate.

An ability to turn your opponent's argument against them. They are basically entertainers.

 

[SomeRandom]

They don't get attention or revenue by being nice.

If they wants to play nice they ought to look into another line of work.

Not so much logic as debate skill. They are not there to find common ground, unless it lets them win the debate.

An ability to turn your opponent's argument against them. They are basically entertainers.

Ha! True!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Logic & being right are no excuse to be mean.

And often enough, "being right" is just as relative as anything Einstein proposed.

 

[Revoltingest]

And often enough, "being right" is just as relative as anything Einstein proposed.

Sometimes it's simply being not even wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I’m afraid this will be very anecdotal, as this is based more on my interactions with various crowds more than anything.

I suppose like when JK Rowling made her opinions on trans individuals known. Which is her right to do so. I don’t really care one way or the other personally. And the “Twitter mob” howled her down, which was stupid but Twitter sucks. So eh.
Then in response was this letter signed by various authors to “stop the cancel culture.”
But I don’t think that free speech was being defended, it just appeared that way. (Maybe media manipulated it somewhat, idk.)
This response wasn’t an open invitation for the “free exchange of ideas.” Not really. It was just used as a smug way to point to those “lousy wokescolds.” And proclaim themselves the true champions of free speech. (But I mean it’s Twitter, who cares?)
Maybe some of those peeps were earnest, I’m just saying. People seem to get so caught up in “being right” that discussion breaks down.
JK Rowling signs letter warning over free speech after trans row - ABC News

I'm sorry, but what does any of that have to do with atheists using logic and reason as a bludgeon rather than a tool for interpreting reality?

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm sorry, but what does any of that have to do with atheists using logic and reason as a bludgeon rather than a tool for interpreting reality?

Sorry. Okay. I’m not talking about atheists, but “New Atheists.” Self styled debaters who seemingly champion logic and reason. Inspired by the “four horsemen.” Actually iirc that was one of the main criticisms of them back in the day. More interested in using “logic” as a tool to sell their brand of Atheism.
They liked the spectacle of the creationist debates but I think many got bored and simply went after new targets.
Jordan Peterson, Ben Sharpiro, this guy called Tim Pool I guess. I’m not American, so this is more second hand stuff for me.

From the interviews I’ve seen over the years, they seem more combative than anything else. More interested in selling their brand of politics with “logic and reason” as an ostensible chaser. Maybe Lobster Peterson is sincere. But Ben couldn’t even get through a professional interview simply asking him to elaborate his position (See his interview with conservative BBC journo Andrew Neil. I don’t think Ben will ever live that one down online.)

 

[Samael_Khan]

So, you guys are familiar with the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” yeah?

I remember them going on stage to humiliate (whether intentionally or not) their opponents, using logic and reason.

It was probably more spectacle than actual debate in hindsight. Ostensibly they wanted to champion intellectualism and scientific literacy. Which is pretty noble, right?

But I’ve noticed that people, public figure and laymen alike, seem to use logic more as a bludgeon than a tool for interpreting reality. They pick an ideal to live and die by (often freedom of speech, if I’m honest.) Proudly boasting at how they are using logic and reason to battle against X.
Think figures like Jordan Peterson, for example. Or I dunno Ben Shapiro.

But there also seems to be very little nuance to the world views being championed, imo. It’s just peacocking.
The aesthetics of logic and reason but without any real humanity to it. I see it in some New Atheism groups. Logic and reason they claim. But still try desperately to justify old hierarchies and human prejudices.
It’s almost dogmatic. And ends up being used to dehumanise their “opponents.” Effectively eliminating empathy and becoming an exercise in futility.
It becomes a sport instead of a debate. More about winning. I saw this happen in 2016, with many “owning the libs/SJWs” with logic and reason. But no actual debate, no free exchange of ideas. Even though that was allegedly a desired goal.

What are your thoughts?
Because I feel like some people are using “logic and reason” as preaching tools rather than utilising their benefits. Does that make sense?

I fully agree with you. I find that the New Atheists and those who "own" SJW's are not dealing with the nuance of the positions they are critiquing, and, as a person who tries to research religion and critical race theory on an intellectual level, I find their arguments rubbish and just a sign of bigotry, as they aren't representing the arguments of the other side properly. They are doing what they accuse the other side of doing. Whenever someone has a reductionist view of the opposing position, then we should be wary.

The opponents of SJW's are critiquing laymen who often are hysterical, and come across as logical, but notice that they hardly ever debate with the intellectuals who know the theory behind the ideology, because they can't actually deal with the in depth reasoning behind the viewpoints.

 

[Heyo]

So, you guys are familiar with the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” yeah?

I remember them going on stage to humiliate (whether intentionally or not) their opponents, using logic and reason.

It was probably more spectacle than actual debate in hindsight. Ostensibly they wanted to champion intellectualism and scientific literacy. Which is pretty noble, right?

But I’ve noticed that people, public figure and laymen alike, seem to use logic more as a bludgeon than a tool for interpreting reality. They pick an ideal to live and die by (often freedom of speech, if I’m honest.) Proudly boasting at how they are using logic and reason to battle against X.
Think figures like Jordan Peterson, for example. Or I dunno Ben Shapiro.

Who? Peterson isn't even an atheist (well, he may be, he doesn't even know himself) and Shapiro is an agnostic Jew. They are the ones debating against "new" atheism.

But there also seems to be very little nuance to the world views being championed, imo. It’s just peacocking.
The aesthetics of logic and reason but without any real humanity to it. I see it in some New Atheism groups. Logic and reason they claim. But still try desperately to justify old hierarchies and human prejudices.

You are confusing "alt-right" with "new atheism".

It’s almost dogmatic. And ends up being used to dehumanise their “opponents.” Effectively eliminating empathy and becoming an exercise in futility.
It becomes a sport instead of a debate. More about winning. I saw this happen in 2016, with many “owning the libs/SJWs” with logic and reason. But no actual debate, no free exchange of ideas. Even though that was allegedly a desired goal.

What are your thoughts?
Because I feel like some people are using “logic and reason” as preaching tools rather than utilising their benefits. Does that make sense?

I have something that is similar to logic and reason to bludgeon interlocutors but I call it

 

[rational experiences]

Who is the corrupted in logic? The secret criminals who use forums to make secret threats to humans who own four horses actually. Why the comments make no sense.

 

[SomeRandom]

Who? Peterson isn't even an atheist (well, he may be, he doesn't even know himself) and Shapiro is an agnostic Jew. They are the ones debating against "new" atheism.
You are confusing "alt-right" with "new atheism".


I have something that is similar to logic and reason to bludgeon interlocutors but I call it

I’m simply saying they use similar “tactics.” I know the Alt right aren’t exactly friendly with New Atheists
Also haha cluebat, that’s awesome

 

[Heyo]

I’m simply saying they use similar “tactics.” I know the Alt right aren’t exactly friendly with New Atheists
Also haha cluebat, that’s awesome

Well, since that misunderstanding is out of the way, the title makes more sense.

Yes, logic is a tool and as such amoral. And it can be "corrupted" in a way as it may be used for nefarious ends. In a chess match it isn't the "good" person who wins but the one better at using logic.
In an ideal case logic should lead to the most logical solution independent of who is using it. But we are human and sometimes we don't want the best solution, we want the one we were favouring before the debate even began.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, since that misunderstanding is out of the way, the title makes more sense.

Yes, logic is a tool and as such amoral. And it can be "corrupted" in a way as it may be used for nefarious ends. In a chess match it isn't the "good" person who wins but the one better at using logic.
In an ideal case logic should lead to the most logical solution independent of who is using it. But we are human and sometimes we don't want the best solution, we want the one we were favouring before the debate even began.

Yes, that’s true.

So as a random aside, what do you think about the rise of this “Alt right?”
I’m not American so I’m probably ignorant of a lot of the nuance and context. I mostly know it through social media “personalities.”

 

[Heyo]

Yes, that’s true.

So as a random aside, what do you think about the rise of this “Alt right?”
I’m not American so I’m probably ignorant of a lot of the nuance and context. I mostly know it through social media “personalities.”

I'm also no US citizen so my information is nearly completely YouTube derived. I see them mostly as a (pseudo) intellectual counter balance to the traditionally left intellectual elite. Some of them have indeed risen together with or as part of new atheism (and now have "found Jesus", as that is where their audience is). Stefan Molyneux would be an example of that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because I feel like some people are using “logic and reason” as preaching tools rather than utilising their benefits. Does that make sense?

What if we were to replace the charged word "preaching" with something more neutral like "promoting a position"? And what if I then said: "I feel like some people are using 'logic and reason' to promoter a position"?