When debating, we should always use the rules of Boolean logic / algebra

[icehorse]

I sometimes see debates on RF and the posters seem to either be unaware of boolean logic / boolean algebra, or they think they can ignore it.

It strikes me that if we don't use boolean logic, we can't really have any useful, fun debates or discussions. (Unless perhaps we're in the games forum.)

Here's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

By extension, if a poster says: "Since A, and B, and C are true, then D is true", then ALL of A, B, and C must be true, or D is unproven.

There are many other rules, e.g. how to use "or", but this seems like a start...

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I sometimes see debates on RF and the posters seem to either be unaware of boolean logic / boolean algebra, or they think they can ignore it.

It strikes me that if we don't use boolean logic, we can't really have any useful, fun debates or discussions. (Unless perhaps we're in the games forum.)

Here's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

By extension, if a poster says: "Since A, and B, and C are true, then D is true", then ALL of A, B, and C must be true, or D is unproven.

There are many other rules, e.g. how to use "or", but this seems like a start...

Too simple. Let's write it like a game loop. Input, update, render. And when someone goes off-topic, we can say that we experienced a "memory leak".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

 

[sun rise]

I sometimes see debates on RF and the posters seem to either be unaware of boolean logic / boolean algebra, or they think they can ignore it.

It strikes me that if we don't use boolean logic, we can't really have any useful, fun debates or discussions. (Unless perhaps we're in the games forum.)

Here's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

By extension, if a poster says: "Since A, and B, and C are true, then D is true", then ALL of A, B, and C must be true, or D is unproven.

There are many other rules, e.g. how to use "or", but this seems like a start...

You used "sometimes" to which I agree. Not all debates are intellectual. Some are emotional.

As far as boolean logic goes, if someone is making an intellectual point, it's important to avoid logical fallacies.

 

[Heyo]

I sometimes see debates on RF and the posters seem to either be unaware of boolean logic / boolean algebra, or they think they can ignore it.

It strikes me that if we don't use boolean logic, we can't really have any useful, fun debates or discussions. (Unless perhaps we're in the games forum.)

Here's a common rule that gets broken a lot:

If a poster says something like: "Since A and B are true, then C must be true." (Of course that statement might be wrapped in all sorts of additional words. so we have to be able to reduce the claim down to what I've said above.)

The important point here is that - for the sake of civil debate / discussion - if EITHER A or B is false, then C has not been proven.

By extension, if a poster says: "Since A, and B, and C are true, then D is true", then ALL of A, B, and C must be true, or D is unproven.

There are many other rules, e.g. how to use "or", but this seems like a start...

Boolean (a.k.a. binary, a.k.a. Aristotelian) logic is useful when dealing with simple statements.

But we often discuss statements that aren't so simple that the rule of the excluded middle applies. In those cases we need more refined tools like Bayesian inference.

 

[icehorse]

Boolean (a.k.a. binary, a.k.a. Aristotelian) logic is useful when dealing with simple statements.

But we often discuss statements that aren't so simple that the rule of the excluded middle applies. In those cases we need more refined tools like Bayesian inference.

I'd say we ought to get AND, OR, NOT, and precedence nailed down first

 

[Shaul]

There are things which are not subject to logic. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that logic, whether boolean or another kind, should always be used.

 

[Heyo]

I'd say we ought to get AND, OR, NOT, and precedence nailed down first

I agree. First learn to walk before we start running.

 

[icehorse]

There are things which are not subject to logic. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that logic, whether boolean or another kind, should always be used.

Well the context was using logic while debating. Are there times when you think debates are not subject to logic?

 

[Shaul]

Well the context was using logic while debating. Are there times when you think debates are not subject to logic?

Yes. When you are debating aspects of things which are not subject to logic then using logic in the debate is itself illogical.

 

[icehorse]

Yes. When you are debating aspects of things which are not subject to logic then using logic in the debate is itself illogical.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Shaul]

Can you give me an example?

A debate about emotions comes to mind. It would be hard to prove whether Hitler loved his dog using logic.

 

[icehorse]

A debate about emotions comes to mind. It would be hard to prove whether Hitler loved his dog using logic.

I think one constraint we follow when debating is avoiding unfalsifiable claims.

So I think that either of those topics COULD be discussed logically given the correct context and/or information.

Without those, i'd say that you could have discussions or disagreements, but not really debates, correct?

 

[Shaul]

I think one constraint we follow when debating is avoiding unfalsifiable claims.

So I think that either of those topics COULD be discussed logically given the correct context and/or information.

Without those, i'd say that you could have discussions or disagreements, but not really debates, correct?

I don't agree. A debate can be about an unfalsifiable claim. Such debates are common. Examples include political debates. A debate is just a formal type of discussion. A debate can certainly be about non-provable things. (Just ask anyone who is married. )

 

[icehorse]

I don't agree. A debate can be about an unfalsifiable claim. Such debates are common. Examples include political debates. A debate is just a formal type of discussion. A debate can certainly be about non-provable things. (Just ask anyone who is married. )

It's certainly common for unfalsifiable claims to sneak into debates. But my point is that as soon as that happens, if it's allowed to pass, it's no longer a debate. It probably transmorgifies into an argument at that point.

 

[Valjean]

There are things which are not subject to logic. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that logic, whether boolean or another kind, should always be used.

Matters of ontological fact, at least in this material world, are subject to logic. This would include religious and historical claims.
What things not subject to logic are you referring to?

 

[Valjean]

Well the context was using logic while debating. Are there times when you think debates are not subject to logic?

....and how would such a discussion proceed?

 

[Valjean]

A debate about emotions comes to mind. It would be hard to prove whether Hitler loved his dog using logic.

But due to lack of data to work with, not because the methodology is flawed.

 

[Shaul]

But due to lack of data to work with, not because the methodology is flawed.

But the lack of data is inherent to the topic of emotions. We patently cannot have the necessary "data". Which means that the methodology is non-efficacious for such cases.

 

[icehorse]

But the lack of data is inherent to the topic of emotions. We patently cannot have the necessary "data". Which means that the methodology is non-efficacious for such cases.

I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that debate, discussion, and argument should be distinct from each other.

As I read your posts, it seems to me you're putting discussion and argument into the same category as debate? Maybe I'm reading you wrong?

With that said, I think that there are aspects of emotions that could be debated. Not all, but some.