On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

[Scott A. 0]

Brian, my only complaint against you is that you come too close to expressing moral conclusions that are based on someone's perceived lack of knowledge. I apologize for not linking to an example, but it is late and I'm tired, so I'll leave it to others to do so--at least I think there are those who see some of your statements as attacks on their virtue. If not, then I beg your pardon.

I very much enjoyed your post, too, Janet, in its entirety. I quote just the last part of it to make a point that has probably been made before on other threads. I have not read every post in this thread or the one that sparked the creation of this one, but it's pretty obvious that people are taking things personally. I don't know whether they should or not, but the fact is that it's happening. When that happens, something has gone wrong.

Sometimes it's the simple fact that the written word, in contexts such as these, is often difficult to interpret in terms of tone. It could be that if two people involved in a back and forth were sitting together having a verbal conversation, no one's remarks would be taken negatively or personally. However, the fact that this is a different kind of medium for communication brings with it, in my perspective, the responsibility of considering how one's words could be taken. Plus, if my goal is to be heard and persuasive, then I prefer to make my case both clearly and politely. I just see it as in my self-interest to consider how I'm coming across.

On the flip side, the person who thinks he is being offended also has a responsibility to keep the context in mind and ask himself whether or not he is actually being offended. One cannot automatically assume that a firmly or even harshly worded post is necessarily directed at him personally. It could be, but it also might not be. And that's the issue here: it's often difficult to tell. If it is unclear, I think it's reasonable to state that one is uncertain whether another's post is meant as a personal remark, give the other person a chance to explain that, but then proceed with one's argument in reference to the ideas being discussed. In this way, one is keeping the ultimate focus on the ideas, but also letting another person know that something is coming across in a way that could reasonably be construed as personal.

In short, communication is a two-way street, but not a game of "chicken."

[JRoberts 0]

The second statement speaks of "diagramming sentences", which is overblown exaggeration.

Oh? What about this post? Or this post?

I'm not debating whether or not it is proper or improper to diagram sentences-I just find your claim of "overblown exaggeration" to be incorrect, given the proof.

The third statement is more exaggeration, the purpose of which is to ridicule the length and manner of the thread. To me, this is worthless nonsense, serving no proper purpose.

If you believe this to be so, then what purpose did both of your posts in this thread serve? I see both the post that you find nonsense and your own post to be of the same manner.

[JRoberts 0]

Brian, my only complaint against you is that you come too close to expressing moral conclusions that are based on someone's perceived lack of knowledge. I apologize for not linking to an example, but it is late and I'm tired, so I'll leave it to others to do so--at least I think there are those who see some of your statements as attacks on their virtue. If not, then I beg your pardon.

I very much enjoyed your post, too, Janet, in its entirety. I quote just the last part of it to make a point that has probably been made before on other threads. I have not read every post in this thread or the one that sparked the creation of this one, but it's pretty obvious that people are taking things personally. I don't know whether they should or not, but the fact is that it's happening. When that happens, something has gone wrong.

Sometimes it's the simple fact that the written word, in contexts such as these, is often difficult to interpret in terms of tone. It could be that if two people involved in a back and forth were sitting together having a verbal conversation, no one's remarks would be taken negatively or personally. However, the fact that this is a different kind of medium for communication brings with it, in my perspective, the responsibility of considering how one's words could be taken. Plus, if my goal is to be heard and persuasive, then I prefer to make my case both clearly and politely. I just see it as in my self-interest to consider how I'm coming across.

On the flip side, the person who thinks he is being offended also has a responsibility to keep the context in mind and ask himself whether or not he is actually being offended. One cannot automatically assume that a firmly or even harshly worded post is necessarily directed at him personally. It could be, but it also might not be. And that's the issue here: it's often difficult to tell. If it is unclear, I think it's reasonable to state that one is uncertain whether another's post is meant as a personal remark, give the other person a chance to explain that, but then proceed with one's argument in reference to the ideas being discussed. In this way, one is keeping the ultimate focus on the ideas, but also letting another person know that something is coming across in a way that could reasonably be construed as personal.

In short, communication is a two-way street, but not a game of "chicken."

This is a wonderful post Scott. There is the possibility that when a person uses an excessive amount of formatting tools to get their point across, this could be taken as highly emotional. Compare the tone of:

I don't understand how you believe this.

With:

I don't understand how you believe this.

Both of these are the same sentence, but by italicizing the understand and bolding the this, you place more emphasis (or length) on that word, and thus the tone changes from a more neutral to a potentially degrading sentence.

It might help by lessening the use of these formatting tools-in such a case, I think your post would be a very proper bit of advice .

[PhilO 0]

But I have neither the knowledge of grammar, nor schooling in logic to accomplish this.

A prime characteristic of rationalism - which is not an expression of rationality - is a complete dependence on deductive logic (or, at least what is purported to be deductive logic) and hair-splitting to the Nth degree, with a wanton disregard for: context; integration with specific facts as the faux-logical argument proceeds (especially those outside of the immediate discussion); value hierarchy (both in one's self and the one responded-to); the actual truth of deduced conclusions; and other problems. It's a real and pervasive problem for many otherwise very intelligent thinkers.

You don't need to have self-doubt about some part of your cognitive abilities because you can't follow a ridiculously contorted faux-logical argument that actually makes no sense at all. Ayn Rand's thoughts were sometimes difficult but note that she invariably kept her ideas tied to existence, with brilliant clarity, and entirely without such torrents of rationalistic verbiage that express a lot of movement without action (to paraphrase Ben Franklin.)

[Paul's Here 0]

------------

Sometimes it's the simple fact that the written word, in contexts such as these, is often difficult to interpret in terms of tone. It could be that if two people involved in a back and forth were sitting together having a verbal conversation, no one's remarks would be taken negatively or personally. However, the fact that this is a different kind of medium for communication brings with it, in my perspective, the responsibility of considering how one's words could be taken. Plus, if my goal is to be heard and persuasive, then I prefer to make my case both clearly and politely. I just see it as in my self-interest to consider how I'm coming across.

------------

This not only hits the nail on the head, the hammer broke because you hit the nail so hard. The Forum is a conversational medium. When I respond to posts, they are almost always extemporaneous and to the best of my ability as clear as I can make my argument. I do not write responses and then sit on them for 3 to 10 days thinking if every word is the proper way to express my thought. To engage in arguing about the logic of a particular statement, as the PRIMARY response to a post and to ignore the context, is way beyond the context of internet forums. One can certainly criticize an argument's logic when disagreeing with the facts or interpretation of the facts, when that criticism is part of the post attacking the argument. But to divert the argument from the subject of the thread to the logical structure of a statement is wrong in a converstaional medium. If logic is one's primary disagreement, then another thread should be started stating that as the subject matter.

As far as being offended, it is patently offensive to have a conversation diverted from one subject to another, especially when one states that one does not intend to argue about the logic but the "opponent" posts 5 posts on how illogical one's argument is from every angle that can be thought of over a 12-hour period.

[Carlos 0]

His capacity for logical reasoning is not what is under question here, and is not what is being condemned as a vice. It is what he directs his logic at, whether it be the person or the topic.

For disclosure, I don't know whom Jordan includes as those who condemn anything as a vice here. I do not condemn a vice here, and am perfectly capable of expressing myself if I indeed were. It's not clear from the grammar, but Jordan includes only himself in that description.

My opinion is that Brian's approach is mistaken, and my posts here are trying to address that mistake. A good number of people have privately expressed frustration with his method of posting, and my point here is simply to try to address that.

I'm sorry, I worded that in a sloppy manner and did not mean to imply we were, or I was, condemning Brian with a vice.

All I meant was that "It is what he directs his logic at, whether it be the person or the topic" is what is under question here.

[Free Capitalist 0]

To engage in arguing about the logic of a particular statement, as the PRIMARY response to a post and to ignore the context, is way beyond the context of internet forums. One can certainly criticize an argument's logic when disagreeing with the facts or interpretation of the facts, when that criticism is part of the post attacking the argument. But to divert the argument from the subject of the thread to the logical structure of a statement is wrong in a converstaional medium. If logic is one's primary disagreement, then another thread should be started stating that as the subject matter.

Right, I agree completely. This ties in with the the fact that our posts online aren't always received as we intended them, in that it may be perfectly acceptable at times, in person, to discuss the logic of an argument (with the consent of the speaker), to divert temporarily here or there. The intent and consent of the speaker are obvious and implicit in a face-to-face personal conversation; even a phone conversation. On a forum, exactly like you said, we need to strongly consider how our words will be received by others; how our analysis of their words will be received by others; how our formatting of our words will be received by others. All of these can give a strongly different impression even than intended; can strongly put off the intended listener (or any other listener) from receiving the words. I personally skipped a lot of Brian's later posts in this thread, not from any personal antipathy, but simply because they're unreadable to me.

[RayK 0]

To engage in arguing about the logic of a particular statement, as the PRIMARY response to a post and to ignore the context, is way beyond the context of internet forums. One can certainly criticize an argument's logic when disagreeing with the facts or interpretation of the facts, when that criticism is part of the post attacking the argument. But to divert the argument from the subject of the thread to the logical structure of a statement is wrong in a converstaional medium. If logic is one's primary disagreement, then another thread should be started stating that as the subject matter.

Right, I agree completely. This ties in with the the fact that our posts online aren't always received as we intended them, in that it may be perfectly acceptable at times, in person, to discuss the logic of an argument (with the consent of the speaker), to divert temporarily here or there. The intent and consent of the speaker are obvious and implicit in a face-to-face personal conversation; even a phone conversation. On a forum, exactly like you said, we need to strongly consider how our words will be received by others; how our analysis of their words will be received by others; how our formatting of our words will be received by others. All of these can give a strongly different impression even than intended; can strongly put off the intended listener (or any other listener) from receiving the words. I personally skipped a lot of Brian's later posts in this thread, not from any personal antipathy, but simply because they're unreadable to me.

I disagree. If we as Objectivist agree that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Then we should also agree that logic rest on the axion of "existence exist." Which means if a person holds a contradictory concept or thought, than they most likely hold a contradictory identification of reality. How is one supposed to show them their mistaken premise without taking the subject matter all the way to it's root understanding? The answer is one cannot. So, is Brian really going off topic? I do not think so. I think that Brian, along with myself, is always striving to show the root cause of one's mistaken premise and the only way to do that is to go all the way to the root of the problem throught logical persuasion. If this is what is considered by some as diverting the subject, than I must disagree.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I disagree. If we as Objectivist agree that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Then we should also agree that logic rest on the axion of "existence exist." Which means if a person holds a contradictory concept or thought, than they most likely hold a contradictory identification of reality. How is one supposed to show them their mistaken premise without taking the subject matter all the way to it's root understanding? The answer is one cannot. So, is Brian really going off topic? I do not think so. I think that Brian, along with myself, is always striving to show the root cause of one's mistaken premise and the only way to do that is to go all the way to the root of the problem throught logical persuasion. If this is what is considered by some as diverting the subject, than I must disagree.

Ray, Aristotle said long ago (Rhetoric), that the art of expression is a necessary and indivisible corollary to logic. Because the only way to transmit your own logical thinking to another mind is through expression, and expression follows slightly different but corollary rules to those of logic. "Logic as the only thing necessary" is only true for your head alone; for his lead alone; but not the only thing necessary between the two.

[Paul's Here 0]

To engage in arguing about the logic of a particular statement, as the PRIMARY response to a post and to ignore the context, is way beyond the context of internet forums. One can certainly criticize an argument's logic when disagreeing with the facts or interpretation of the facts, when that criticism is part of the post attacking the argument. But to divert the argument from the subject of the thread to the logical structure of a statement is wrong in a converstaional medium. If logic is one's primary disagreement, then another thread should be started stating that as the subject matter.

Right, I agree completely. This ties in with the the fact that our posts online aren't always received as we intended them, in that it may be perfectly acceptable at times, in person, to discuss the logic of an argument (with the consent of the speaker), to divert temporarily here or there. The intent and consent of the speaker are obvious and implicit in a face-to-face personal conversation; even a phone conversation. On a forum, exactly like you said, we need to strongly consider how our words will be received by others; how our analysis of their words will be received by others; how our formatting of our words will be received by others. All of these can give a strongly different impression even than intended; can strongly put off the intended listener (or any other listener) from receiving the words. I personally skipped a lot of Brian's later posts in this thread, not from any personal antipathy, but simply because they're unreadable to me.

I disagree. If we as Objectivist agree that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Then we should also agree that logic rest on the axion of "existence exist." Which means if a person holds a contradictory concept or thought, than they most likely hold a contradictory identification of reality. How is one supposed to show them their mistaken premise without taking the subject matter all the way to it's root understanding? The answer is one cannot. So, is Brian really going off topic? I do not think so. I think that Brian, along with myself, is always striving to show the root cause of one's mistaken premise and the only way to do that is to go all the way to the root of the problem throught logical persuasion. If this is what is considered by some as diverting the subject, than I must disagree.

As I stated, then a thread devoted to that subject matter should be created for the purposes of that discussion. How in the world would any subject be understood if every "illogical" statement required 5 pages of argumentation within a given thread? Since logic is involved in everything, every thread would degenerate into arguments about logical questions. Don't you think that simplying stating something like, "this is based on ad hominem because it attacks a person's character and not his argument" is a sufficient statement without having to generate 10 posts on the subject? If the other person disagrees, he can simply state, "no my argument is not based upon that fallacy." If the argument is going to be about what constitutes the nature of ad hominem, then a new thread should be started. It should not be within a thread discussing whether President Bush is an altruist or not.

Just take this one example. Suppose I were to assert that your response above illustrated context dropping, argument from authority, equivocation on the word "mistaken." What do you think would happen to the subject matter here if I were to switch to this method of addressing your argument. Imagine if the 5 or 10 people who are reading this post were now to offer their opinions with 3 or 4 posts each. Or to even take the opposite end. Suppose I were to assert that your response is the most logical argument I've ever heard, and we need to address why the validity of the senses is important to your argument. If the potential problems with this method doesn't make your head swirl, perhaps I need my motion sickness pill.

[Arnold 0]

Ray, Aristotle said long ago (Rhetoric), that the art of expression is a necessary and indivisible corollary to logic. Because the only way to transmit your own logical thinking to another mind is through expression, and expression follows slightly different but corollary rules to those of logic. "Logic as the only thing necessary" is only true for your head alone; for his lead alone; but not the only thing necessary between the two.

I agree, logic applies not only to your argument, but to it's presentation. Brilliant, in your face pounding of the former, will not always compensate for failure in the latter. As I pointed out before, this failure, by it's very nature, is hard to grasp by those in most need of it. (Without implying any particular individual, I have noticed how easy it is to get carried away with transmitting logical thought trains in one's own head, and be oblivious to how those thoughts are being received in someone else's head.)

[RayK 0]

I do not know how any of you came to the conclusion from my statements that one should not try to get people to understand that which one is stating. Obviously, if one is communicating with someone it is to be understood by that someone. But, that does not mean that we should not think or discuss principles/fundamentals to convince that someone of their mistaken premise.

I now always begin my conversations with my new or possibly new clients with a question of what is important to them. I have found that this type of question usualy allows me to get a good understanding of them and how I should focus my responses to them, to concretize my ideas for them. But, I must in the end take my ideas to the root cause of why they are having problems or they will not make the needed changes to gain the values they seek long-term. In other words, if I do not demonstrate or discuss why they are wrong right to the root cause of why they are working counter-productive to their own goals they almost always fail. This type of attack to their held premises almost always leads to the question, "why do you always discuss philosophy when we are trying to lose weight?" Or, another question which is something like, "what does this have to do with me?" I take both these questions and explain how unless they understand something to it's root cause they will almost always come to a contradiction and fail. Of course, a lot of people see this as off topic at the beginning of their time with me.

I once held a round-table with my clients to figure out if there was anything that I could do differently, it was enlightening. There was a large difference in the mentality between the long term clients and the short-term clients. One of the short term clients stated that they disliked the discomfort that they were going through while working out. One of my long term clients stated that they also disliked the discomfort and then went even further to state that they hated paying me to abuse them every week. The other client then asked why they would keep coming? The long term clients response has always stuck with me, "I always make progress, and Ray drips his philosophy out to you with no contradictions." This of course cannot be done in a day nor a week, but it must be the goal right from the beginning

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If we as Objectivist agree that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Then we should also agree that logic rest on the axion of "existence exist." Which means if a person holds a contradictory concept or thought, than they most likely hold a contradictory identification of reality. How is one supposed to show them their mistaken premise without taking the subject matter all the way to it's root understanding?

Usually, pointing out the facts that conflict with someone's incorrect conclusion ought to be sufficient to show that he is wrong and citing relevant facts is certainly on-topic. You don't need to focus on the process that led to his conclusion at all and focusing on the process tend to derail discussions and get them off-topic.

Avoiding making an issue of the reasoning process also discourages people who make a big hairy deal about "logic" in order to avoid dealing with the facts. One memorable case was a programmer on a software team I was managing. I told him his program had a bug in it because it produced a report showing 16 items and 18 items adding up to a total of 32 items. He disagreed and took out his program listing -- 6000 lines of code -- insisting that he had checked out every single line and his logic was perfect. I told him that I didn't give a damn about his "logic," that 16 + 18 were not equal to 32, and he had to fix it.

[RayK 0]

Betsy, I can agree with the example you have given. But, I do think that there are certain situations that call for a more thorough grounding of one's ideas. For example, I cannot tell people that they are the way they are without giving a quick description of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Now, as soon as I mention the theory to some people they bring up their religious or metaphysical understanding of reality which obviously my ideas are the opposite. If I do not take my ideas to their logical root, I will be left with nothing to stand on, no way to prove my ideas. I must at this point go "off-topic" to convince them why their ideas are incorrect and why they have failed at their attempts to achieve their goals.

[oldsalt 0]

If we as Objectivist agree that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Then we should also agree that logic rest on the axion of "existence exist." Which means if a person holds a contradictory concept or thought, than they most likely hold a contradictory identification of reality. How is one supposed to show them their mistaken premise without taking the subject matter all the way to it's root understanding?

Usually, pointing out the facts that conflict with someone's incorrect conclusion ought to be sufficient to show that he is wrong and citing relevant facts is certainly on-topic. You don't need to focus on the process that led to his conclusion at all and focusing on the process tend to derail discussions and get them off-topic.

Avoiding making an issue of the reasoning process also discourages people who make a big hairy deal about "logic" in order to avoid dealing with the facts.

I see your point, but how one deals with the facts is relevant--i.e., it tells you something about the premise(s) that underlie the logic. The "logic" used by the person in your example had nothing to do with the purpose of the whole exercise, i.e., with reality, but was narrowly applied to the structure of the program.

How is one to address an instance of someone acknowledging the facts, but in effect says, "yeah, but?" It is a person's thought processes that lead to how that person thinks about the facts of reality. If the process is wrong, the conclusions will be wrong.

It is very easy to make a flat statement about something. It is much more difficult to tease out what is essential to the statement and then to explain the reasons why it is false. Personally, I prefer being told what errors someone thinks I've made in my thinking. It keeps the conversation grounded in objective reality, rather than someone's assertions, whether the assertion is on my part or on the part of someone who is disagreeing with me. The rules of logic are the same for everybody. If you have given a topic sufficient thought, you ought to be able to defend your position in reason.

I still think that the problem is more with how the arguments are being presented on both sides.

[oldsalt 0]

But I have neither the knowledge of grammar, nor schooling in logic to accomplish this.

A prime characteristic of rationalism - which is not an expression of rationality - is a complete dependence on deductive logic (or, at least what is purported to be deductive logic) and hair-splitting to the Nth degree, with a wanton disregard for: context; integration with specific facts as the faux-logical argument proceeds (especially those outside of the immediate discussion); value hierarchy (both in one's self and the one responded-to); the actual truth of deduced conclusions; and other problems. It's a real and pervasive problem for many otherwise very intelligent thinkers.

You don't need to have self-doubt about some part of your cognitive abilities because you can't follow a ridiculously contorted faux-logical argument that actually makes no sense at all. Ayn Rand's thoughts were sometimes difficult but note that she invariably kept her ideas tied to existence, with brilliant clarity, and entirely without such torrents of rationalistic verbiage that express a lot of movement without action (to paraphrase Ben Franklin.)

What you say about rationalism is correct, but I don't think that Brian is being rationalistic, nor do I think his arguments are "faux-logic."

I have no self-doubt about my cognitive abilities. I was pointing out an area where I know my knowledge is deficient--to my detriment. It does me no good to pretend that I have abilities that I don't possess, or to ignore the fact that I do not possess the ability to argue my point with confidence because of this lack.

This doesn't mean that I think I have to point the logic out to everyone I talk to. It does mean that having the ability gives me more confidence in my own conclusions, and in my discussions with others. It saves an enormous amount of time, as well, time that can be spent on other things.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, I can agree with the example you have given. But, I do think that there are certain situations that call for a more thorough grounding of one's ideas. For example, I cannot tell people that they are the way they are without giving a quick description of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Now, as soon as I mention the theory to some people they bring up their religious or metaphysical understanding of reality which obviously my ideas are the opposite. If I do not take my ideas to their logical root, I will be left with nothing to stand on, no way to prove my ideas. I must at this point go "off-topic" to convince them why their ideas are incorrect and why they have failed at their attempts to achieve their goals.

If the question is, "What should I eat?" you could tell a fundamentalist Christian that he can eat almost anything because people evolved as omnivores, but that might side-track the discussion into issues of evolution vs. the Bible and faith vs. reason. If you want to stay on topic, however, you can simply point to observable facts about man's nature as he is now, regardless of how he got to be that way, and what his nutritional requirements are as a result.

Now, there are definitely times when it is appropriate to launch into side discussions of epistemological methodology but, as you observed, it does get you away from the original topic. That is why, in FORUM threads, it is better to just stick to the relevant facts and keep methological side discussions out of it. When necessary, however, the side discussion may be appropriate on a separate thread -- like this one.

[PhilO 0]

I have no self-doubt about my cognitive abilities. I was pointing out an area where I know my knowledge is deficient--to my detriment. It does me no good to pretend that I have abilities that I don't possess, or to ignore the fact that I do not possess the ability to argue my point with confidence because of this lack.

No, of course not. It's good to study formal logic - which I'm sure you can readily do - and especially to be aware of common fallacies in one's own thinking as well as others, in the course of developing a line of reasoning. But there is an excellent reason why Ayn Rand was superlatively logical yet did not engage in ridiculous exercises involving pages of pointless nitpicking that ultimately go nowhere (a logical consequence of what is actually an *illogical* psychoepistemology, i.e. rationalism.) The reason is that she clearly knew her values and always kept her thinking rigorously tied to the facts and constantly cross-checked and integrated her thinking against those facts - which is what "the art of non-contradictory identification" is actually about, as opposed to linguistic analysis. Being a supergenius helped her a lot in that endeavor as well, but the same approach applies to lesser minds.

[Carlos 0]

It's good to study formal logic - which I'm sure you can readily do - and especially to be aware of common fallacies in one's own thinking as well as others, in the course of developing a line of reasoning.

But should it be necessary to study logic at all? I know you're arguing for the case of not investing large amounts of time into studying logic, but I'm asking this for one step further. What need is there to study logic at all? If a man is decently rational does he actually need to be able to identify specific kinds of logical fallacies and know their definitions, or wouldn't he be able to identify and explain why something is illogical just fine?

[~Sophia~ 0]

If a man is decently rational does he actually need to be able to identify specific kinds of logical fallacies and know their definitions, or wouldn't he be able to identify and explain why something is illogical just fine?

I find that having an explicit understanding of concepts helps your cognition.

[Ed from OC 0]

It's good to study formal logic - which I'm sure you can readily do - and especially to be aware of common fallacies in one's own thinking as well as others, in the course of developing a line of reasoning.

But should it be necessary to study logic at all? I know you're arguing for the case of not investing large amounts of time into studying logic, but I'm asking this for one step further. What need is there to study logic at all? If a man is decently rational does he actually need to be able to identify specific kinds of logical fallacies and know their definitions, or wouldn't he be able to identify and explain why something is illogical just fine?

Good question. It depends on the context: is this person Rearden or Ragnar? For a Rearden, having a rudimentary familiarity with the common types of logical fallacies (post hoc, for instance) can improve his thinking. He can recognize a particular instance of this type of logical error and correct his thinking. If he wasn't familiar with them, he may spend more time than necessary sorting out the correct answer and being uncertain of his conclusion. He may feel there is something wrong with his thinking, but not be sure where or if he erred.

It's the usual advantage that comes from explicitly conceptualizing (including naming) the particulars within some area, and understanding the principles involved.

Obviously, for a Ragnar, the study of logic (including a broader historical and theoretical analysis) is a direct professional interest.

[Brian Smith 0]

Wow. Look at all these posts. That'll teach me to miss even one day in a contentious thread.

I think Ray and oldsalt have been making very important points which go to the heart of a central issue here. In a post or a thread, the topic is never just about the subject of the statement which is made. It is also about whether the claims made about the subject are valid or invalid - whether they are true or false - whether they accurately identify reality or not. When speaking of the "topic" of someone's writing, these two things are inseparable.

Thus, if the "subject" of a statement is "Bob" and the conclusion is "Bob is an altruist", then the premises which lead to this conclusion and the methodology used to reach the conclusion from those premises must be identified and their correctness confirmed. In other words, both the facts and the process of linking them must be validated. If either is not valid, then the conclusion is no longer supported. And unless additional support is provided (support subject to the same process of logical scrutiny), then the conclusion must be dismissed.

Put simply, whether it is one's facts or one's methodology which are invalid, the result is the same: the conclusion is no longer supported and can no longer be rationally discussed, because arbitrary assertions have no cognitive content.

Therefore, even if the facts of one's premises are completely valid, if the methodology used to reach a conclusion is in question then, until that procedural question is resolved, there is no other 'topic'. There is only an arbitrary assertion.

This is why Ms. Speicher's principle pertaining to what is and is not "on topic" is wrong and why her software programming example does not address the issue in question. She presents a case where both individuals agree that 16 + 18 = 32 is in error. In other words, in this example, there is no dispute that the conclusion fails to follow from the premises. However, that is not the nature of the disputes being contested in this thread. A more accurate example would be one like this:

Manager: Your program has a bug in it. It produced an erroneous mathematical error, because it produced a report showing x + y = a.

Programmer: But x + y does = a

Manager: I disagree. So you need to fix the code.

So whose claim is true: the manager who says the code is wrong and must be fixed - or the programmer who claims the manager's math is wrong and thus her conclusion about the code is wrong? The truth cannot be identified without delving into a discussion about mathematics. But that, it is claimed, would be "off topic". Neither party would be talking explicitly about the "bug" or the need to "fix the code" any longer. Yet on what basis is it claimed any rational discussion between the two parties could continue "on" these topics without them first resolving the more fundamental mathematical issue?

Rationally, that would be impossible.

--

(I may likely comment on a couple of the other posts here, but given their numbers - and the nature of a few of them - obviously I will not be responding to most of them directly.)

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

Thus, if the "subject" of a statement is "Bob" and the conclusion is "Bob is an altruist", then the premises which lead to this conclusion and the methodology used to reach the conclusion from those premises must be identified and their correctness confirmed. In other words, both the facts and the process of linking them must be validated. If either is not valid, then the conclusion is no longer supported. And unless additional support is provided (support subject to the same process of logical scrutiny), then the conclusion must be dismissed.

Put simply, whether it is one's facts or one's methodology which are invalid, the result is the same: the conclusion is no longer supported and can no longer be rationally discussed, because arbitrary assertions have no cognitive content.

Therefore, even if the facts of one's premises are completely valid, if the methodology used to reach a conclusion is in question then, until that procedural question is resolved, there is no other 'topic'. There is only an arbitrary assertion.

----------

I am curious about two things.

1. Does the above mean that all arguments in all threads must now present the methodology by which all conclusions of all statements were reached, whenever there is any disagreement? Mere citation of facts demonstrating the connection of the argument to observable data is no longer valid to confirm an argument?

2. Why should the need to discuss methodology only apply when two people are in disagreement? Isn't it possible that both have made errors, and until both present their methodologies all of their statements are arbitrary assertions? Shouldn't it also apply when people are in agreement? (After all, it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that corresponds to reality by illogical means. It is also possible to arrive at the same conclusion by alternative premises.)

Personally, from now on I look forward to every person who has posted on this thread to provide the epistemological methodology by which they arrived at their every statement. Any further statements will be regarded as arbitrary with no cognitive content if both the content and methodology are not presented.

[RayK 0]

Paul,

So, are saying that it is incorrect to state "how did you come to that conclusion?" Whether one agrees or disagrees with the conclusion, I still think it perfectly proper to ask how someone came to their conclusion.

[Scott A. 0]

Therefore, even if the facts of one's premises are completely valid, if the methodology used to reach a conclusion is in question then, until that procedural question is resolved, there is no other 'topic'. There is only an arbitrary assertion.

I was following this until the part quoted above. I take it you are saying that one can begin with factual premises but then reason incorrectly from them to reach a wrong conclusion. Is that correct? If so, could you give an example of this?

(By the way, I have never formally studied logic and do find this thread educational.)