Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
It can be logically wrong, while not being morally wrong.
Logical "wrongs" are normatives - what makes them "wrong" is you've violated a social norm about logic.
Moral "wrongs" are normatives - what makes them "wrong" is the exact same thing as logical wrongs. You have violated some social norm.
If there can be such thing as a logical wrong then there can be such thing as a moral wrong.
Just so it happens people get a whole lot more outraged by murder than by logical contradictions - either way. They are both social norms.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
"No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."
That's not morally wrong. It's logically wrong.
There is a logic in which it's defined as wrong.
There's a logic in which its defined as right.
All that is necessary for a logical wrong to become a logical right is to choose a different logic - a different set of premises/axioms.
In the trivial case - one can simply assume a contradictory/explosive logic. Which proves everything.
The irony of your argument, of course is that in classical logic absence of negative evidence is sufficient for proving existence.
That is how all proof-by-contradiction works.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
It is a fallacious appeal to ignorance.
No, it isn't. It's just a valid rule of inference in my logic. It's a valid principle of agnosticism too.
In the absence of evidence for God AND the absence of evidence against God both theism and atheism are idiotic positions. But you can still hold those position simply on the basis of choosing to do so.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
If I am PH, I could agree that there is nothing objectively MORALLY wrong with using that argument. But I can say that it is wrong in the IS realm.
Which realm is "THIS" realm? The realm of YOUR normative logic; or the realm of my normative logic?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
Let's not equivocate on the two types of wrong.
Lets not equivocate on "this realm". Which realm are you talking about?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
He can point out that someone's argument failed to make sense, be convincing, be logical.
He can't do any of those things without appealing to subjective/normative rules for "making sense", "be convincing" or "being logical".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
It doesn't achieve it's goal.
Arguments don't have goals. That's an anthromorphism.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
It does not demonstrate what the person intends it to. It's like putting a duck on my car engine and saying my techinique fixed my transmission. No, it didn't work.
I say it worked. You say it didn't work. By what objective criteria do we determine whether an argument works?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
No. But if we are trying to make sense, we need to. If you are willing to admit, tacitly, that you don't care if it is logical or not, do whatever you want.
No, I am willing to admit that YOU don't care about logic and YOU do whatever you want under the pretense of being "civil", "rational" and "logical".
Because you can't get to argue that the is-ought gap is insurmountable and in the very next breath insist that we OUGHT to be logical, consistent, reasonable or whatever else.
I am literally DOING what you are asking of me. I am being consistent. Perfectly consistent, mind you. LIke a dumb computer perfectly and literally following the rules of logic.
IF the is-ought gap is insurmountable then there is no argument you can present. No reason you can present why we OUGHT to be loigical, rational or whatever else you insist we OUGHT to do in order to meet our needs.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
It seems like you are trying to mount a logical argument. If you don't care if your argument is fallacious, let me suggest that it is much easier to write gibberish.
I am writing gibberish. Where do you see any logic in the fact that I am intentionally contradicting myself to argue against non-contradiction?
Give it up already. Logic is just rule-following. That shit's for robots/computers.
You are human.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm
I never said anyone should
But you do care about it, don't you? Even if you haven't said it.
So it is subjectively or objectively true that you care about the law of non-contradiction?