The only objectionable word was “rape”.

# >Now back to reality

# >A Little Bit of Logic is a Confusing Thing

>As I stated in the post below, I just finished a logic class.

It had a very cool tool to help you learn how to apply logic. It works best when paired with Hurley’s Concise Introduction to Logic. (I have the 9th edition.)

I’ve added links where I think they’ll be useful, but all links were provided to the class by Mrs. Roth, the instructor!

Now, the example I used was S>~I S*I // G Let me give you the stuff to translate this out, since part of what tickled me pink about this class is that we spent a lot of time translating English– well known for the wiggle room available– into math, which is… not. ~ in front of a letter means that it is not so, that it is false. * means that both are true– it’s “and” v means “or”. At least one of the two is true. > is kind of like starting the phrase with “if” and putting “then between the two. If the first one is true, the second one also is; the first can be false and still have the second be true, but the second can’t be false with the first one true. = (it’s got three lines in the formal symbols, but eh) means “if and only if”– no matter what, if the first one is true, the second one has to be. If the second one is true, the first has to be. Ditto for false. // symbolizes that you are going from the argument to the conclusion. Whatever is after // is the answer that’s offered, and you have to figure out if it’s right or not. () or {} or [] are used to group the arguments.

When things get complex, you can’t just say A*D*R, or AvD*R. That’s too much wiggle.

~~ is a double negative– basically, it doesn’t effect anything except for symbolizing, but it’s got its own rule called “double negative”. You can add or remove these at any time without effect.

So, * S>~I S*I // G* would translate as

*If S is true, then I is false. S and I are true. Thus, G.*

The letters stand for phrases in the argument– as Anon mentioned, the argument makes no sense, because G has nothing to do with S or I in the argument. (Is that you, Darth? The writing seems familiar somehow, but not like my guildmates.)

Although we didn’t cover this in class, I’d venture that it it’s an informal fallacy, such as missing the point or Red Herring. However, I’m trying to focus on, well, formal logic.

That means it’s either valid/sound or invalid/unsound. Truth really doesn’t come into it much.

It’s bloody obvious that you can’t have both S causing ~I and S*I both being true, someone has to be wrong. Now, the first rules we learned, among the rules of inference, were: Modus Ponens: if P>Q, and you know P is true, then you know Q is true. This makes sense, since it’s basically restating “If P, then Q.”

Modus Tollens: if you know P>Q, and you know that Q isn’t true, then you know that Q isn’t true, either. This is a bit harder– and the “MP or MT” messed me up a LOT– but it also makes sense, since if P “causes” Q, and Q didn’t happen, P must not have, either.

Hypothetical Syllogism: If P>Q, and Q>R, then Q>R. This one is practically the ideal of logic that I grew up with– “we know that if P is true, then Q is true. We know that if Q is true, then R is true. So *of course* we know that if P is true, then R is true!”

Disjunctive Syllogism: if QvP, and ~P, then Q. Also, pretty basic– if you have steak or fish, and it’s not fish, it’s steak.

Constructive Dilemma: Given (P>Q)*(R>S) and PvR then you can say QvS. I think this is related to the following rule of simplification: Simplification: If you know A*B, then you can simplify to A. If you use the rule you learn later, called Commutativity (where you can switch any arguments around a v or a *) you can make it B*A, and simplify it to B. It’s pretty easy to see why this works. “I know today is Tuesday, and I get ice-cream on Tuesday. I know today is Tuesday.” Now, I said above that I think this is related to CD, and that’s because if both P and R are true, and both Q and S result, then it would be almost like– not actually true, but almost like– P could result in Q and S, since if you know that P *or* R is the case, then Q *or* S is also true.

Conjunction: Knowing P, and knowing Q, you can say P*Q. It’s just the opposite of simplification– you know they’re both true, so you can join them up. Addition: this one is a weasel. If you know that P is true, then you could also say that PvQ, since v only means that at least *one* of them is true. If you’ve got the hang of logic, despite me, you’ve probably figured out that Addition is the way that you can end up with a result that isn’t even kind of related.

Now, back to the problem: S>~I S*I // G Well, we have to prove everything out, so we take S*I and simplify it down to S. (Save this, then go get the rest of the parts.) Then we go back to S*I again and switch it around with Commutativity, so that it’s I*S. Then we simplify I*S down to just I, same as we did with S*I.

Once we have I, we use the double negative rule– adding a ~~ without any real change being made to the equation– so that it says ~~I. Since we now can prove that ~I is false– that’s what ~~I translates as, remember– then we can take the disjunctive syllogism and prove that S is also false, so ~S. You then go back to S and use addition– that weasel I mentioned?– and say that SvG is true.

Since you’ve said that either S or G is true, and right there in the paragraph above you proved that S isn’t true, you know that G must be true. And that’s how you can end up with a *valid* logical formula that is just silly.

I don’t know why, but this just tickles me pink….

# >YES!!!

>I ACED my logic final!

Got an A overall, too!

This is a lot more impressive– or less, if you’re math-minded, as I am– when you consider that logic has a lot of the stuff below (Re-written so it’s not cheating, just in case.)

S>~I

S*I// G

That means that if S, then not I. S and I are true. The final conclusion has to be G. This one is actually a bit tougher than others when it’s NOT in normal English.

Original:

If Smaug knows that Bilbo is there, then Bilbo won’t be saved by invisibility. Smaug does know Bilbo is there, but Bilbo was saved by invisibility. Therefore Samwise is the best character ever.

S= Smaug knows Bilbo is there

I= Bilbo is saved by invisibility

G= Samwise is the Greatest

I rather consider this a lesson in how logic can be easily abused– you *can* follow the rules perfectly and have a formal proof that Samwise is the best because Smaug knew Bilbo was there, but Bilbo was saved by The Ring. There are the informal fallacies, and I think this would be a good example of “Missing the Point”– or Ignoratio Elenchi. Only problem is, for that fallacy to be identified, you SHOULD be able to identify the logical response.

I’ll edit this post with the logical rationale for why the above argument is valid when the class is over, just in case.

# >Global Warming and/or Climate Change

>Well, duh, of course it’s happening. I haven’t seen many wooly mammoths around here lately, have you?

…

Alright, more seriously. There’s all kinds of evidence that the way the world is now, weather-wise, isn’t how it has been in the past.

There’s also all kinds of records that show that in fairly recent history– well, times AD, this is a kinda broad swath, after all– the were were warm and cold times. The Vikings probably profited from the better temps– Greenland, anyone?– and I’m still chuckling at NOAA’s trying to refute the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that would have been ending around 1200 using a single study that they believe reaches as far back as 1000-ish. Sorry, I’ll sooner believe a study is wrong than belive that, for example, wine grapes suddenly stopped being able to grow in the climate of England after the Romans, then suddenly could be grown again in the Middle Ages, and stopped, and just now are slowly becoming able to be grown again.

I’ll throw out the freezing or lack thereof on the Thames River– an area where we do have rather good history dating rather far back– and just leave it at the statement that, though there aren’t a lot of studies drilling into ice to figure out temperatures, you can figure it out otherwise.

I’m also amused that a lot of the warming charts from actual measurements– not the ones adjusted, not the ones pumped out of a computer simulation– show the temps going up over 150 years ago. Dang, those horses were HORRIBLE for carbon emitions, eh?

I don’t think we should shoot ourselves in the foot by destroying economies on the maybe-possible-chance of fractionally reducing a lesser greenhouse gas when we don’t even agree on what models are right. We don’t even know if it will be bad to have the temperature go up– worked pretty good for the dinosaurs, no? (That was a joke. Much like that horribly flawed movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.”)

Long story short: No, I don’t believe we should turn over control of all our worldy goods to someone so they can save us. I do try to reduce what I use, but that’s just basic manners– also economically sound.

# >A bit of information-

>I keep reading that SCNT– somatic cell nuclear transfer — isn’t cloning, or doesn’t result in a human if it is cloning.

This can only be true if you believe the classic first clone, Dolly, was not a sheep.

I believe all humans are humans and are people. I don’t care how they came to be, if it was from a loving home, from a rape, from a one-night-stand, from a scientist putting their mother’s egg with their father’s sperm or from a scientist inserting what had been someone else’s DNA. Once there is a biological organism, that is a new member of the species. I don’t care if it’s a sheep or a human, they are members of that species– and the first person to post any “collection of cells” BS is going to be deleted until they learn enough biology to know that ALL of us are collections of cells.

And my species, the human species, should always be treated as a person. To do less– to define a human as not a human, due to medical state or an accident of birth– is to risk repeating history.

# >0.o

>This is so wrong….

The Sands of Passion. A Jahaid Soap Opera.

It… is a Jewish Kidney!