The Illusion of Superiority
I am sorry we morons don't meet your criteria for being qualified to discuss religion and philosophy.
This is the exact sort of bad reasoning which I was referring to in my original post. You're putting forth what is known as a Straw Man Argument. Instead of addressing what was actually said you're putting words in my mouth in order to try and make me look bad. I did NOT call anyone a moron - nor did I state that anyone wasn't qualified to discuss religion and philosophy on this forum. This is not the position I hold. Rather, I was pointing out that if you're going to accuse other people of being "illogical" perhaps you should make sure you have a good understanding of what logic is yourself.
It would be like me, who is clearly not proficient at spelling, going around using misspelled words to tell other people that they are misspelling words. Even worse, would be me attempting to correct words that are already correctly spelled. No one would have a problem telling me that I'm wrong. And no one would think the person correcting me was being arrogant.
The same goes with logical aruements, this is hardly the sort of thing to get offended over. If you have a good handle on it - great. If not, I would encourage you to do a little research on the subject.
And, for those who have asked for a definition in the comments above, logic is a mental construct that we use to model reality. Just like the validity of a map is in its ability to show us where things are, the validity of logic is in its explanatory and predictive capabilities. This is important because the better model of reality we have, the better decisions we're going to be able to make.
And, instead of using Straw Man Arguments to missrepresent peoples positions, we're going to be able to discuss the actual issues at hand.
you might do well to dilute the arrogance a bit by some actual information on logic
I did provide some actual information on logic. I provided two separate metrics via which a person could objectively look at them self and determine where they might stand in regards to logic. And I also went into great detail about the Dunning-Kruger effect and how we should be aware of it when assessing our own abilities. I don't see what's so arrogant about that. But perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten us by actually qualifying your statement instead of just making a blind assertion.
Qualify? in what sense?
if you mean answer the op yes i believe i know logic reasonably well. To tell a person if he "knows what logic is" is perhaps the statement that require some qualification.
I think the question on many peoples mind in this thread is if you yourself are victim of the DK effect. Providing some educational information rather than asserting a number of things you cannot really know about other would be a good start to dispell that idea.
I think the question on many peoples mind in this thread is if you yourself are victim of the DK effect.
Your question illustrates my exact point. Instead of exercising a little bit of introspection and wondering “Hey, does that apply to me?” you’re instead worrying about applying it to someone else. This is not how intellectual honesty works.
Though, all that aside, I will answer your question. The reason I know I’m not in the same boat as the very people I’m concerned about is because I actually do have a solid definition of logic. And because I actually have studied Epistemology, Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, Abductive Reasoning, Instrumental Rationality, Syllogisms, Logical Absolutes, and Synthetic and Analytic Distinctions.
And, while I don’t know EVERYTHING about logic, I at least know SOMETHING about logic. And, more importantly, I qualify my statements. When I disagree with someone I don’t just say “You’re irrational” or “You’re stupid” or, in the case of what you said to me, “You’re arrogant.”
Rather, when I disagree with someone, I seek to find out where the difference of opinion lies. I ask myself: is their premise faulty? Or is the conclusion drawn from the premises a non sequitur? Or, are both correct and it’s the conclusion that I hold that’s actually wrong?
However, when someone like yourself just makes the unqualified assertion “you’re arrogant” there’s no where for me to go. Because I don’t know why you’re saying that so I can’t address whether or not the criticism is valid or invalid.
So, once again, I’ll put the question to you, why do you think I’m being arrogant?
I have nothing to say about this topic except to express my surprise at Coded Logic's surprise that this thread rubbed everyone the wrong way. Gee, how could a vaguely passive-aggressive-sounding diatribe generate this kind of response? Truly this was unpredictable.
Well, you did manage to pull out a strawman from the responses, Coded Logic. Not to mention your use of the broad brush.
I pointed out how I am an exception to your rule.
Some people have the ability to reason effectively, and present rational and compelling arguments even though they have never encountered an analytic-synthetic dichotomy - or is it a false dichotomy?
Sometimes learning stuff makes people more interesting and other times it makes them insufferable.
I have nothing to say about this topic except to express my surprise at Coded Logic 's surprise that this thread rubbed everyone the wrong way.
You're incorrect. I'm not surprised in the slightest at the hostile reactions on this thread. In fact, I was quite certain there would be a number of people who would take it quite personally. But at the end of the day, those people will have the tools to evaluate themselves and think about it in private. I’m certainly not expecting anyone to hop on this thread and announce, “You know what, you’re absolutely right, I don’t have nearly as good of an understanding of logic as I thought I did.”
Not to mention your use of the broad brush.
I’m not sure I follow you. My OP was NOT referencing the majority - much less everyone - on this website. In fact, I'm reasonably certian that there are people on this website that are better at logic and know more about it than I do. Rather, I was referring to the people who call other people “illogical” without consideration to their own abilities.
It's basic tenets of logic.
Category is the correct spelling of "catagory."
We are all people here with gifts and with flaws. I don't perceive the feeling of "superiority" you accuse us of having. Most of us have learned many things besides TTATT. Just sayin'.
I did take a course in logic in college, and I am familiar with the fallacies and dilemmas we all face from time to time.