Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Poll: Who is more logical - Spock or Chemist?
Alright, since Chemist told me in private email that his logic is real while Spock's is fictional, let's put it to the test. Who's logic makes more sense here, and is more logical, Spock or Chemist? Let's compare their own words.
Spock: (in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, after Space Station Regula does not return Enterprise's communications) "There are two possibilities - They are unable to respond; They are unwilling to respond."
Spock: (in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, after watching the Genesis video with Kirk and McCoy) "Logic suggests that it is easier to destroy than to create."
Spock: (in same movie) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Spock: (in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, during the final battle scene, after analyzing Khan's starship tactics) "He's intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2 dimensional thinking."
Chemist: "Winston is not charming because he delivers ultimatums to girls that he is angry at, and defends his beliefs with strong dramatic letters. These two minor incidents make it impossible for him to have ever done anything charming in his whole life, or been charming to any girl." (points that he has repeatedly said on the forum)
Chemist: "Winston is not charming because he eats leftover pizza crusts left by hot girls in front of other girls." (from a private email to me)
Chemist: "Winston is unqualified to point out options that exist if he himself has never taken those options, e.g. he is not qualified to say that one CAN join the military unless he himself has joined the military. He cannot quote other travelers who have worked overseas because he has not worked overseas extensively and instead must let them speak for themselves. In other words, no one should quote or cite other people, including their own friends!"
Now, whose statements above are more error-free and less subjective? Is it obvious or what?
I think that surely this Chemist dude named Keith is deluded and warped, especially since he claims that his logic is real while Spock's is fictional, yet strangely enough, Chemist never demonstrates any "real logic". (Little does Chemist know that Leonard Nimoy who plays Spock, is known as a highly logical person in REAL LIFE too) Yeah right, and my basketball dribbling is better than Michael Jordan's.
Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!
Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.
Find Your Foreign Sweetheart Now! Try our international Dating Sites and Overseas Romance Tours!
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Leonard Nimoy and his wife, Susan Bay Nimoy about a decade ago at the Las Vegas Hilton. Mr. Nimoy was doing appearance at the ST: The Experience area and I just wandered in by accident. I didn't have a ticket for the event, so I went sit by the bar and his wife was sitting next to me. She was quite nice and introduced me to her husband later and got me 2 autographs.
As celebrities I think they were very nice to their fans. Mr. Nimoy took his time to chat with people and didn't try to rush them off, like "next!". However I'd also note that this was a relatively small event with maybe 40-50 people in the audience. So if he was at SDCC (San Diego Comic Con), I'd imagine the autograph session would be very different.
Cute little poll, but really none of it is real logic. It's mostly catchy one-liners, and comebacks. It's fun stuff but it's not logic. If we were really considering these things in terms of formal or informal logic, most of them would be fallacies ... tautology, straw man, red herring ... Of course, it would be somewhat inappropriate/boring to use logic in everyday conversation. It's like "talking in maths." Who's going to do that? LOL.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
W: Why are none of the quotes by Spock considered "not real logic" to you? The quotes from him that I cited were perfectly logical and made sense. Can you explain exactly which quotes of Spock are not logical and why?
I am not talking about logic in math. I'm talking about applying logic in common sense everyday reality. Many people have it. Others don't or pretend not to to play devil's advocate or be a butthead.
OK, Winston, you asked for it ... Logic, both formal and informal, is technically a form of mathematics no matter how it is applied (in the real sense of the word). It is a branch of philosophy, which involves reasoning structures/arguments. Even in informal logic, there are specific criteria for argument construct (is it an argument?), what makes an argument valid, sound, elegant, a fallacy etc... That is the actual meaning of real logic. Logic, is also a word in everyday colloquium. In this sense it has another connotative meaning. When used in this way, logic tends to mean everyday common sense, or the ability to respond with catchy one-line comebacks. Sometimes being "rational/logical" also has a connotative meaning of emotional control. In that sense, then we can say these cute little one liners from Spock are logic, but in reality, or in the real sense of logic they are not. For example, "There are two possibilities - They are unable to respond; They are unwilling to respond." is a classic example of a false dichotomy, a fallacy in informal logic, which fails to recognize third or alternative possibilities. Maybe they are able to respond, and willing to respond, and will do so later. "Logic suggests that it is easier to destroy than create." -This has no premise, so it's not even an argument! "The needs of many outweigh the few." This a popular utilitarian type idea, but again ... no premise, this is not even an argument. "He's intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2 dimensional thinking." These are statements, not arguments ... no premises, and no inferences are made here. Have I spelled it out enough why these little one-liners are not really "logic?" Sorry, but my B.A. is in Philosophy, and I am too infected by actual logic to just embrace the popular connotative meaning of the word. Technically, I am not a logician, because my concentration was in ethics as opposed to logic. However, an ethicist has to be relatively well versed in logic, both formal and informal.
I don't like to take the fun out of the creative use with connotative meaning of words in screenplays, as I myself enjoy writing plays, and do not always use semantic or statistical accuracy (poet's license). However, I think that there is a point where you need to be aware of what logic is really, as opposed to how you perceive it and be able to enjoy a fantasy world without taking it too seriously. It's not so much that you are *wrong* in using the term logic, in this way, from time to time. However, when you put such a strong focus on this term, and you are not writing a work of fiction, some people may expect real logic. Especially when you mention that Chemist is has made a point about the distinction between real logic and fictional Star Trek logic.
Just so you know, I don't think that logic always belongs in conversation. Especially on a forum like this, where the content is very subjective and personal. The "debates" are more of a transactional sharing of personal experience and feedback.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." -Ludwig Wittgenstein