When Appeals to Reason Don't Work

[Axe Elf]

I had this exchange on Facebook over the last 24 hours. It really makes me wish there was a Logic Commission or something to which we could appeal when someone clearly isn't thinking right. In this case, I come to you, dear readers, for a ruling on who is being more rational here.

(I understand that we also need a Logic Commission on this site, and that not all of those to whom I am appealing for arbitration are qualified to color in a Logic coloring book--but I think the point can be made in spite of them.)

So... do you understand what's wrong with this meme?

She shared a photo.
Yesterday at 5:17pm ·

Veterans of Vietnam
April 10, 2017 ·
Facts about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Comments

ME: I have to wonder about the accuracy of this, when right off the bat it says that less than 40,000 were age 22 or less, but that more than 40,000 were 18 or 19. Hmmm...


SHE: If you figure the 22 and younger it makes sense. Figure the 18 and 19.The 17,16,15 and we're killed on there first and last day. The 22,21,20 numbers are not listed. Most everyone like it and appreciated it.


ME: I don't understand your explanation. It says that 33,103 of the names on the Vietnam Wall were 18 years old, and that 8,283 were 19 years old. That's 41,386 soldiers right there, not counting those that were 16, 17, 20, 21 or 22--yet it says that 39,996 were just 22 or younger. The 41,386 that were 18 and 19 is already more than the 39,996 that they claim were 22 or younger.


SHE: There is 58,267 total names.


ME: Yes, and 39,996 are said to be 22 or younger. Over 40,000 are said to be 18 and 19. If you can't see why that's a problem by now, I'm not sure I can explain it any better.


SHE: The ages for 20 count


ME: Sigh.


SHE: The age count for 19 and under count equals 39,996

 

[Curious George]

Yes you are correct. The math doesn't add up.

 

[idav]

Its programming logic. I got your point but then noticed it says 22 or younger, not 22 and younger.

 

[Curious George]

Those facts are relatively easy to check. I am pretty sure the typo is in the number of 18 year olds and it was 3,103. Not 33k.

 

[Axe Elf]

Its programming logic. I got your point but then noticed it says 22 or younger, not 22 and younger.

So? Isn't the set of soldiers who were "22 or younger" the same as the set of soldiers who were "22 and younger"?

 

[Polymath257]

You are, of course, correct. The numbers don't make sense as they are conveyed.

 

[Curious George]

https://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

"11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old."


Vietnam War Casualties (1955-1975)

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes you are correct. The math doesn't add up.

Tolerance demands that we give equal weight to the truths of other people.
We shouldn't be slaves to arithmetic.

 

[idav]

So? Isn't the set of soldiers who were "22 or younger" the same as the set of soldiers who were "22 and younger"?

Your right but or is not semantically correct. I usually see things like 21 and older. When you use or like in the example the number could apply to the 22 year olds or all people 21 and younger.

ie 39996 = 22a or < 22a

 

[idav]

Tolerance demands that we give equal weight to the truths of other people.
We shouldn't be slaves to arithmetic.

A programmers wife asked her husband to go to the store. She asked him to get 1 loaf of bread and if they have eggs get a dozen. The programmer came back with a dozen loafs of bread.

 

[Revoltingest]

A programmers wife asked her husband to go to the store. She asked him to get 1 loaf of bread and if they have eggs get a dozen. The programmer came back with a dozen loafs of bread.

Makes perfect sense.
(I just heard that one earlier today.)

 

[Axe Elf]

Your right but or is not semantically correct. I usually see things like 21 and older. When you use or like in the example the number could apply to the 22 year olds or all people 21 and younger.

ie 39996 = 22a or < 22a

I can see that reason is not your strong suit, either.

When the statement is made, "39,996 (of the 58,267 names on the Vietnam Memorial) were just 22 (years of age) or younger," they are not saying that "39,996 of those soldiers could be just 22 years of age, or 39,996 of those solders could be younger." That's just silly.

But let's assume that it COULD be true, just for the sake of showing how unreasonable it would be even then.

If they meant that 39,996 of the names were exactly 22, then that leaves less than 20,000 names that could be anything OTHER than 22--and the numbers given for the 18 and 19 year olds are way more than that.

If they meant that 39,996 of the names were younger than 22, then again, the numbers given for the 18 and 19 year olds are still more than that.

So that's not a reasonable interpretation either.

 

[idav]

I can see that reason is not your strong suit, either.

When the statement is made, "39,996 (of the 58,267 names on the Vietnam Memorial) were just 22 (years of age) or younger," they are not saying that "39,996 of those soldiers could be just 22 years of age, or 39,996 of those solders could be younger." That's just silly.

But let's assume that it COULD be true, just for the sake of showing how unreasonable it would be even then.

If they meant that 39,996 of the names were exactly 22, then that leaves less than 20,000 names that could be anything OTHER than 22--and the numbers given for the 18 and 19 year olds are way more than that.

If they meant that 39,996 of the names were younger than 22, then again, the numbers given for the 18 and 19 year olds are still more than that.

So that's not a reasonable interpretation either.

Well I certainly wouldn't have written it that way. My only point was 'and' would have a stronger case to prove your point. Using or is different entirely. I don't know if you've used a lot of 'and' 'or' in programming but I will tell you it isn't exactly intuitive like we would like.
What is the difference between AND vs OR list criteria?

 

[David T]

I had this exchange on Facebook over the last 24 hours. It really makes me wish there was a Logic Commission or something to which we could appeal when someone clearly isn't thinking right. In this case, I come to you, dear readers, for a ruling on who is being more rational here.

(I understand that we also need a Logic Commission on this site, and that not all of those to whom I am appealing for arbitration are qualified to color in a Logic coloring book--but I think the point can be made in spite of them.)

So... do you understand what's wrong with this meme?

She shared a photo.
Yesterday at 5:17pm ·

Veterans of Vietnam
April 10, 2017 ·
Facts about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Comments

ME: I have to wonder about the accuracy of this, when right off the bat it says that less than 40,000 were age 22 or less, but that more than 40,000 were 18 or 19. Hmmm...


SHE: If you figure the 22 and younger it makes sense. Figure the 18 and 19.The 17,16,15 and we're killed on there first and last day. The 22,21,20 numbers are not listed. Most everyone like it and appreciated it.


ME: I don't understand your explanation. It says that 33,103 of the names on the Vietnam Wall were 18 years old, and that 8,283 were 19 years old. That's 41,386 soldiers right there, not counting those that were 16, 17, 20, 21 or 22--yet it says that 39,996 were just 22 or younger. The 41,386 that were 18 and 19 is already more than the 39,996 that they claim were 22 or younger.


SHE: There is 58,267 total names.


ME: Yes, and 39,996 are said to be 22 or younger. Over 40,000 are said to be 18 and 19. If you can't see why that's a problem by now, I'm not sure I can explain it any better.


SHE: The ages for 20 count


ME: Sigh.


SHE: The age count for 19 and under count equals 39,996

I see zero problem! Why you are complaining about NORMAL? Why without convoluted logic normal would cease to exist and suddenly sanity would reign. There is zero historical evidence of that ever happening, thus you are being a creationist in your complaints!!!!

 

[Axe Elf]

Well I certainly wouldn't have written it that way. My only point was 'and' would have a stronger case to prove your point. Using or is different entirely. I don't know if you've used a lot of 'and' 'or' in programming but I will tell you it isn't exactly intuitive like we would like.
What is the difference between AND vs OR list criteria?

Dude, I minored in Philosophy and have aced classes in logic. I understand the difference between AND and OR, but you have failed to demonstrate how either interpretation differs from the other in this context. The strong likelihood is that one of the numbers is being reported incorrectly, either intentionally or by accident--but I was unable to get this gal to even understand that the numbers don't add up as they are reported.

 

[idav]

Dude, I minored in Philosophy and have aced classes in logic. I understand the difference between AND and OR, but you have failed to demonstrate how either interpretation differs from the other in this context. The strong likelihood is that one of the numbers is being reported incorrectly, either intentionally or by accident--but I was unable to get this gal to even understand that the numbers don't add up as they are reported.

I'm just playing devils advocate. I really don't see why the poster couldn't get your point and their answers were not helping. I would have wriitten there were this number 22 or some could be younger. Then the whole thing would make more sense.

 

[Curious George]

Tolerance demands that we give equal weight to the truths of other people.
We shouldn't be slaves to arithmetic.

Lol, engineers.

The bigger picture is how we deal with the "truths" of others. In this instance, the person quoted a typo, and instead of being able to understand the error a needless debate ensued.

It is clear that the numbers were off. It is relatively easy to find the actual numbers. Are people that scared of simple math that they cannot find both problems and a solution?

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, engineers.

The bigger picture is how we deal with the "truths" of others. In this instance, the person quoted a typo, and instead of being able to understand the error a needless debate ensued.

It is clear that the numbers were off. It is relatively easy to find the actual numbers. Are people that scared of simple math that they cannot find both problems and a solution?

Ruin the joke, will ya!

 

[Stevicus]

I had this exchange on Facebook over the last 24 hours. It really makes me wish there was a Logic Commission or something to which we could appeal when someone clearly isn't thinking right. In this case, I come to you, dear readers, for a ruling on who is being more rational here.

(I understand that we also need a Logic Commission on this site, and that not all of those to whom I am appealing for arbitration are qualified to color in a Logic coloring book--but I think the point can be made in spite of them.)

So... do you understand what's wrong with this meme?

She shared a photo.
Yesterday at 5:17pm ·

Veterans of Vietnam
April 10, 2017 ·
Facts about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Comments

ME: I have to wonder about the accuracy of this, when right off the bat it says that less than 40,000 were age 22 or less, but that more than 40,000 were 18 or 19. Hmmm...


SHE: If you figure the 22 and younger it makes sense. Figure the 18 and 19.The 17,16,15 and we're killed on there first and last day. The 22,21,20 numbers are not listed. Most everyone like it and appreciated it.


ME: I don't understand your explanation. It says that 33,103 of the names on the Vietnam Wall were 18 years old, and that 8,283 were 19 years old. That's 41,386 soldiers right there, not counting those that were 16, 17, 20, 21 or 22--yet it says that 39,996 were just 22 or younger. The 41,386 that were 18 and 19 is already more than the 39,996 that they claim were 22 or younger.


SHE: There is 58,267 total names.


ME: Yes, and 39,996 are said to be 22 or younger. Over 40,000 are said to be 18 and 19. If you can't see why that's a problem by now, I'm not sure I can explain it any better.


SHE: The ages for 20 count


ME: Sigh.


SHE: The age count for 19 and under count equals 39,996

Well, you're right that the numbers are off, but I'd probably be more interested in who compiled these stats, where they come from, and what message someone was trying to convey by posting them.

I wouldn't see any point in getting bogged down over the numbers here. The numbers of total dead seem accurate enough, but it appears there may have been some mistaken or conflicting data about the ages of those who died.

It seems that the underlying point of posting these stats would be to illustrate that it's mostly young people who die in wars, which is true enough on its face - even if someone might have fudged the figures here.

 

[Axe Elf]

Well, you're right that the numbers are off, but I'd probably be more interested in who compiled these stats, where they come from, and what message someone was trying to convey by posting them.

I wouldn't see any point in getting bogged down over the numbers here. The numbers of total dead seem accurate enough, but it appears there may have been some mistaken or conflicting data about the ages of those who died.

It seems that the underlying point of posting these stats would be to illustrate that it's mostly young people who die in wars, which is true enough on its face - even if someone might have fudged the figures here.

I know, it's just a stupid point about a stupid typo. I'm just amazed that this woman couldn't even comprehend what the problem was.