I don't think I want to go round again, even if you do. — unenlightened

If you read the reply, the first word was, "Exactly.", as in "I agree".

We both agreed that in order to determine whether or not we actually agree or disagree, we'd have to establish an understanding of each other's position. We would ask each other questions about each other's beliefs to see how it fits in with the rest of what we know (integration). If those questions receive contradictory answers to what they asserted before, then how can one come to understand such a belief?

So we do agree on some things. It is only when I say a particular five-letter word, "logic", that your panties get all tied into a knot.

Logic is a field of philosophy that sets the rules for correct thinking in all the other fields of philosophy. Why would you not want to integrate the conclusions from all fields into a consistent whole?

The interesting thing to note here is that when we agreed, we were both being logical. Neither of us contradicted ourselves in understanding the distinction between agreeing and disagreeing, or that what were both talking about was the same thing - the process of determining whether or not an agreement or disagreement is taking place.

Yeah, I hate that, like we're playing 'name that fallacy'. — Isaac

You might think it a game, but I don't consider making logical fallacies a game. If you consider a philosophical discussion a game, then that is probably a good indicator that we aren't going to find any common ground.

If it makes you hate less, then use the term category error, as virtually any logical fallacy is a category error.

So if one makes an assertion without any source, and is called "authoritarian", then it is simply an ad hom attack as the assertion doesn't provide an authoritative source that is being pleaded.

Trusting authority is a huge part of research.
— Outlander

It is the only currency of culture. Trust, or start civilisation again from scratch and alone. — unenlightened

It seems that you wouldn't need to do research if you trusted the authority.

Sometimes attacking the source is warranted.

Sometimes appealing to authority is appropriate. — frank

I love these assertions without any kind of examples to back them up.

Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic. — A Seagull

I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement.

Yes indeed. One of my very early suggestions was that to resolve a conflict we have to establish the conflict. — unenlightened

If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed. — unenlightened

if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. — unenlightened

Exactly. The common ground is logic. If you refuse to use it, then there is no point in us having a discussion as I would never be able to understand your position to assert that I either agree or disagree.

Accusing people of being authoritarian simply for making assertions, which we all do on this forum, is an ad hom, hypocritical, and isn't a good way to start things off when attempting to find some common ground.

That is the point here, that with you, creativesoul and Pantagruel, I haven't been able to make heads or tails of your arguments because they end up contradicting something else you said before. So, as it stands right now, I can't tell you whether any of us agree or disagree on anything we've "discussed".

As Banno tends to say, and rightly so, we agree on far more than we disagree. — creativesoul

Well, maybe Banno can explain how we know that we are talking about the same thing, and not talking past each other, when we disagree.

I'm thinking of this post as an attempt at a fresh start built upon pre-existing agreement(s). Let's bring some into view. That seems as good a path as any. So... — creativesoul

The fresh start would be in addressing how we can disagree or agree on anything if what was said before contradicts what is said now?

If you can't be consistent in your explanations of your own beliefs, then it seems that you are unable to identify your actual beliefs.

Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.

1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).

Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things? — creativesoul

Sure. But in (2) how do we know that the two different opinions are about the same thing?

We haven't resolved that conflict, so neither of us has demonstrated our method successfully. — unenlightened

When someone keeps contradicting themselves when asked to clarify their beliefs, how are we suppose to know whether we are disagreeing or agreeing on anything?

It seems like the first step would be to clarify each of our beliefs in such a way that the other side can determine whether we are actually agreeing or disagreeing.

What do "human beings" have to do with being you? How did you come to conceive that things called "human beings" and "you" are related in some way? Why would it appear to be that you are "looking out of the eyes" of a human being if you actually aren't a human being?

What I find strange is that "you" seem to have determined what human beings are, but fail to determine what "you" are. So far it seems that you are a determiner of "human beings".

I think everyone is sensitive like that, everyone is not entirely logical, but also emotional. — unenlightened

That sounds logical. :up:

Logic. In practice not application. — I like sushi

Good answer, although I don't understand why you would practice what you wouldn't end up applying at some point.

Its application to words or statements is somewhat haphazard. There is no logical rigour to it. And any logical rigour in the abstract system is lost when it is applied to words.

If A is on B then B is under A
X is on drugs
Drugs is under X. — A Seagull

You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean.

More rhetorical questions. And very silly questions too. Of course in a discussion one brings in terms that were not in the op. Terms like "logic" for example. And no, an authoritarian does not cease to be an authoritarian because people ignore him. So yet again your rhetoric doesn't even disagree with what I have said. You claim logic, but you cannot construct an argument of your own or understand one when presented with it. Make an argument Harry, I dare you. Or link to an argument you have made in this thread. So us this all powerful logic you possess. — unenlightened

According to your statements in other threads on other topics, I don't need to show anything except express that is how I feel.

I feel logical. You say that I am illogical. That it offensive to me. Maybe I'm a logical person inside an illogical body. You need to address me as I wish, and I wish to be addressed as, "Logical".

So you're not going to either "[ask] me for expansion, justification an so on", nor "[admit] [y]our fallibility", nor "treat others as equals by laying things out clearly, and giving explanations and references as appropriate", nor "[be] willing to reconsider in the light of the discussion".

Just going to tell me I'm wrong in a single sentence. We're three exchanges in to our disagreement and already you're either breaking your own rules or you've decided that I'm so outside of the pale that I'm not worth engaging with in the spirit of resolving conflict. — Isaac

Now you're having the same problem I had, and many others have had with unenlightened.

I'm not supporting Harry's position here (I disagree with it quite strongly in fact) — Isaac

Oh wait, you did the same thing you are accusing of unenlightened is doing.

The common thread is that those that have disagreed with me have ended up contradicting themselves (their own rules).

It's over an hour long. Care to point to the exact location in the video that corresponds to what you are trying to show?

You get to disagree. But you actually have not disagreed. If you want to disagree, say something different. A question and a random insult is not disagreeing, merely disagreeable. But anyone else can see very easily that it is substantially true because it actually quotes you traducing my argument in order to pretend that I am being political (and you of course are being logical). It's hilarious in fact. — unenlightened

It's not a fact that you brought terms like "authoritarian" and "Trump" into a discussion that wasn't about either? Did I not show how my initial post in this thread wasn't authoritarian if someone could have just ignored it? You claim to see what others will see, but I don't see it.

So if we take the OP seriously, and think this an interesting question, and we think that I could have been other than bert1, then we must think that "I", even when spoken by bert1 does not entirely mean "bert1". That is, when bert1 is completely specified, there remains some leftovers, like cold Christmas dinner. — bert1

Are you asking if your parents could have given you a different name, or are you asking if you had a different father but the same mother, would you still be you. You wouldn't. YOU wouldn't exist at all, as you are a product of a specific man and a specific woman, even if your mother chose the name "Bert1" for her child independent of which man she chose to mate with.

So are we to take this post as true simply because you said it, or do I get to disagree? How authoritarian.

do you have any qualms in terming Aristotle’s four modes of explanation four types of causes? Or would you rather that the term “causes” is reserved for only those causes/determinants that are temporally prior to their effects? — javra

My qualm isn't about the scribbles we use, but what the scribbles refer to.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing when it comes to formal causes. It may be because I find it difficult to grasp some of the distinctions Aristotle is trying to make between his "four" causes given what we presently know. I find a lot of old philosophers' ideas as antiquated given that they would probably say something different if they lived today.

I think of formal causation as the form something takes as a result of the actions of it's constituents. It's not a temporal relationship, I agree. It's a spatial one. It's a matter of which view of the thing you are talking about you are taking. The microscopic view, the macroscopic view, the god's eye view.... The view has an effect on what forms we are talking about, yet we are still talking about the same thing from different views. Brains look different at the macroscopic level than they do at the microscopic level, but we're still talking about your brain when talking about your neurons.

As for the relationship between your brain and your mental states,

Brains are static objects inside skulls. It is only when you zoom your view down to the level of neurons do you see activity that can be used to mapped with active mental states.

I think of the world as processes all the way down, and objects (forms and purpose) are how the mind objectifies (models) these processes. Like a map, the symbols aren't temporally related to the terrain. So I also agree with you that there isn't a temporal relationship between mental processes and neural activity. It's more like a spatial representation, like the map.

I see temporal causation as a change of view in time as opposed to a change of view in space. The effect is the final cause in the sense that some part of the process has been objectified as the END of a process that doesn't end, just as the form is the objectification of the process from a particular view in space. In effect, there are no effects, or final causes, it's causes all the way down, as each present state determines subsequent states which are then determinants for following states. The effect is merely a mental snapshot of an arbitrary finish-line of changing states.

I guess what I'm saying is that formal and final causes only exist as mental constructs of an ongoing process. They are not some feature of the world outside of your mind. However, the processes themselves do exist outside of your mind.

Yes, I saw how you cherry-picked the definition you used also. I surveyed a number of other definitions available online that did NOT offer that simplistic equivocation. — Pantagruel

You mean like how you cherry-picked your source on dialectic logic and how you cherry-picked this one small part of my post to respond to while ignoring the rest?

Actually, I just grew tired of what was obviously a one-sided discussion. unenlightened obviously has more patience than me. — Pantagruel

Yet your patience was renewed once unenlightened started bandwagoning.

I grew tired of trying to reason with you long ago, so the discussion became more of a way of showing reasonable readers just how hypocritical you are.

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic? — unenlightened

If you don't have a problem with logic being the answer to the question as posed in the OP and then clarified as referring to what is true, then you have just made it more apparent what your actual problem is.

You have a political beef with me, which was actually apparent in when you inserted yourself into the discussion I was having with Pantagruel. You claim that I was being authoritarian, but you know I'm a libertarian. There was nothing authoritative about it. It's an internet post on a philosophy form that can be ignored or argued against. I don't know where you get such ideas other than you just can't stand me because of our political differences so you just want to assemble a bandwagon of hypocrites to pick a fight in a thread that has nothing to do with politics.

When faced with competing valid explanations for what's happened and/or is happening, it is always best to err on the side of the one with the fewest unprovable premisses, the most falsifiable/verifiable claims, and the fewest entities necessary in order for it to have the explanatory power that it does - whatever that may be, and/or amount to.

The fewer the terms necessary for adequate explanation the better. The fewer falsehood, the better. Etc.

That's what's best to believe at all times regarding any and all competing explanations for the same events. — creativesoul

Wow! Thanks, creativesoul. So this means that you like my one-worded reply better than fdrake's post that contains so many entities and presumed truths and all that stuff you just said?

I do not talk like that. Have not. Would not, unless I was intentionally and deliberately temporarily adopting another's use/sense of the term "truth". — creativesoul

What I was referring to is this:

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul

So you want to know which method is useful for determining which of two opposing opinions is true. My answer was simply "Logic", which seems to be in line with the type of answer you are looking as described in your previous statement above. It is only when I pointed out your hypocrisy that the shit hit the fan in this thread.

You do realize that those are not mutually exclusive options, right? Logic does. I do. You do, as well. — creativesoul

Think of logic as the rules of a computer program. The rules are applied to input to provide output. The input (premise) is supplied by the user of the program, not the program. The conclusion is the output. If you have a faulty program (faulty logic) then the output will be incorrect.

We write programs to solve problems. Given the right program you can solve your problem.

Here's where empiricism and logic fails...

The conflicts that matter most are the moral/ethical ones... — creativesoul

Without empiricism how would you be aware of happiness and suffering? Logic is necessary make the distinction between the two. Empiricism is necessary to find the causes of suffering and happiness. Logic is necessary to plan paths to avoid suffering and maximize happiness using what you found using your senses. Empiricism and logic are the only means of determining what is true in ethics and outside of ethics. The imperfections lie in our deep, fundamental premises that we start with, the very first input that produces erroneous output that we then use as input for other programs to solve other problems.

So it seems to me that it comes down to what is ethics and morality. Can you solve that problem with the very thing that you are questioning the nature of? Does the same problem apply to logic?

Kindly do not misrepresent my position. I consider that a reportable offence. — Pantagruel

Yet I made the same statement here and you didn't say anything of the sort.

It's only after unenlightened started his bandwagon that you decided to jump on.

As I have shown, our disagreement has never been about whether logic is or isn't useful for determining the question the OP is asking - if there is a best method for determining what opposing opinion is best to believe. It has been on the nature of dialectic logic.

Logic is one constituent of reason. Reason most emphatically does NOT reduce to logic. Reason also functions through analogy, intuition, synthesis, etc. — Pantagruel

As has been shown by me, you, fdrake and others, there are various forms of logic just as there are various forms of reason. It would be my bet that each form of logic maps onto each form of reasoning that you want to provide as an example.

I also showed that logical and reasonable are synonyms of each other. Do I seriously need to provide you with the definition of "synonym" as well?

No Harry. As you see, I am not mistaken. Pantagruel, @creativesoul and myself, (and @fdrake can speak for himself), but three of us are fairly clear in our continued disagreement with you. You cannot "show" that people agree with you and call that a resolution, you have to allow their autonomy and persuade them to agree. — unenlightened

Pantagruel has been so inconsistent and intellectually dishonest since their initial interaction with me, I seriously don't know what they think or believe.

Creativesoul's issue is that "logic presupposes truth". If that is a problem then there is a problem with their OP, as it presupposes some truth.

When asked to clarify what they meant by "best to believe" creativesoul responded with:

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul

So, what methodology helps to determine what opinions are true. That would be logic.

The fact that fdrake's post is the long drawn out version of simply saying "Logic" and both creativesoul and Baden gave high marks for the post, then it seems that they all agree as well. The high marks might be for the detailed complexity of their post, or it might be a sign of favoritism being that my post, though much shorter, said the same thing and now is when they want to disagree that logic is necessary. In doing so, they just disagreed with fdrake and contradicted themselves.

As for you, you can keep posting because all it does is help my case and hurt yours. Every time you use logic to show how logic isn't useful, you defeat your own argument and strengthen mine. The fact that we disagree has more to do with your inability to remove your politically partisan glasses. You argue for the sake of arguing. You sound like my 13 year old son sometimes.

Seriously though. The question that the title of this thread poses is one that should have been answered when your parents taught you about the birds and the bees.

Yes, I think it might be. But not about the causation of bert1 - that is independent of the question of why I am bert 1, that is to say, why an I looking out of bert1's eyes and not, say Banno's. One could rephrase to say "What caused me to be bert1 rather than someone else." — bert1

Are you asking how a particular view from behind some pair of eyes came to be named "bert1"?

Maybe this will work?

Individual human beings are a product of the genetic material contributed by a particular man and a particular woman.

Bert1 is an individual human being

Bert1 is a product of the genetic material contributed by a particular man and a particular woman.

In defining Bert1 as a human being, we preclude that Bert1 has eyes and information about the world relative to his eyes. Bert1 also has an opposable thumb and walks on two legs. Just as bert1's eyes, thumbs and legs, and their corresponding functions and processes, are part Bert1, so to is Bert1's working memory that his information about the world relative to his eyes are part, which is a function and process of his brain.

But what I was asking, was about the conflict between you and everyone else commenting. — unenlightened

You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. So, while they disagree with their words, they agree with their actions.

And I can see of course that that conflict has not at all been resolved. So I wonder if it is to some extent an externalisation of that internal conflict that you claim is resolved by logic? — unenlightened

You're confusing logic with delusions.

Yes, I think it might be. But not about the causation of bert1 - that is independent of the question of why I am bert 1, that is to say, why an I looking out of bert1's eyes and not, say Banno's. One could rephrase to say "What caused me to be bert1 rather than someone else." — bert1

Hold on. You didn't answer the first question: What is bert1?

You asserted that bert1 has eyes, so I'm assuming that your answer is that you are a human being. Don't we currently have a good understanding of how humans as individuals and as a species came to exist?

You asserted that you are bert1, yet you go on to question how it is that bert1 is looking out of bert1's eyes, and not Bannos'. If those are your eyes, then why is there a question of how you came to look out of them? How did bert1 come to have eyes?

Is bert1 a human being, internet bot, scribbles on a screen, or what? You seem to know what you are - a bert1 - but are ignorant of why you are bert1? Is that not a question about causation?

It does it for me, but if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

I used to ask what the odds are that I would find myself being a human. I had an intuition that I could have been anything. And there is so much more that is lifeless! How did I get so lucky? — petrichor

Luck has nothing to do with it.

The intuition that you could have been anything is evidence that you don't have an understanding of evolution by natural selection.

Just as the theory solved the paradox of which came first - the chicken or the egg - it has also solved the problem of how you came to be who you are.

The above are explicitly stated reasons that existed in time prior to your statement above. In your defense, I did not let you know about it at the time. Perhaps you missed that? — creativesoul

Perhaps you forgot your OP:

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

If you have a problem with logic "presupposing some truth", then why did you presuppose that there are two opposing opinions and that there is a best one to believe?

It seems to me that logic doesn't presuppose some truth, you do, and logic is simply used to determine if another truth (the conclusion) can follow from your presupposed truth (the premise).

Name a method of seeking what is best to believe that doesn't presuppose that there is something best to believe - a truth. What else could you have meant by what is "best to believe"?

The fact is that there are other methods that others claim to use to decide what is best to believe and that you seem at a loss of naming. They are faith, revelation, authority and popularity to name a few, but as you might already know, these are logical fallacies.

One who knows nothing at all about using logic can tell whether or not all sorts of simple statements are true. So, if one such individual already knew 'X', and suddenly found themselves witnessing conflicting opinions in direct conflict to 'X', they could, quite possibly already be, one step forward in determining which of the opinions were reliable and true. — creativesoul

How did you come to know X, and in knowing X, are you not saying X is a truth, in which case you used logic to know X?

Think of formal and final causes as the snapshot views we have of the spatial-temporal causal process. Think of it like digitizing an analog process, where the formal and final causes are the bits we focus on in an (infinite) relationship in space-time. The form and purpose are all snapshot views of an instant in the relationship. The material and efficient causes are the actual relationships independent of our snapshots (formal and final) in time and space.

Think of formal and final causation as how we conceive of the other two causes. There is no final cause except as a concept, as every effect becomes it own cause, its just a matter of which effect we want to focus on and call the end result - or the purpose. Just as the form is not really the end of the road of any causal process. Forms change with time, and any form that you settle with is only an arbitrary finishing line that you have determined in your mind, but causal processes don't stop when you are satisfied with some "end product". Bronze statues can tarnish or be melted.

I agree that in both examples the processes are temporal. So, if I’m interpreting you correctly, you’re saying that (efficient) causation is necessarily temporal whereas determinacy in general is not. Hence, material, formal, and teleological determinacy can each occur in simultaneity relative to that which determines and that which is thereby determined – whereas efficient determinacy, what we today most often interpret as causation, is always temporal. If so, I agree with this as well. — javra

What you call determinancy I see as snapshot views at different sizes relative to the process we are talking about. Think about determinancy as spatial causation and efficient as temporal causation.

Any view is from somewhere in space-time like being outside or inside the process you are observing and the frequency of change you are observing relative to the frequency in which your sensory information processor can process information about what you are observing.

Our minds stretch out these causal relationships in both space and time relative to our own position in space-time.

The first person perspective that is mine is the one that I don't have to postulate as a consequence of the observations of other bodies.

When I write a dynamical systems program to obtain an image, I determine the image. When the program runs, it causes the image to appear. Sorry this is such a trite example. :worry: — jgill

This doesn't sound like a very useful program that only displays one image - the one you determined. Computer programs are useful when they can be applied to create various images for different people based on the input from different users. The programmer doesn't necessarily know what images the program will generate because they are aren't aware of all the different kinds of input from different users. We can try to guess, but we can't account for every instance, which is why programs can have bugs.

So when you determine the image via X, Y, and Z, how do you not cause the properties of the image via these same means? And when the running program causes the image to appear, is not the image’s appearance determined by the running program?

I’m trying to figure out what, if anything, makes the two different. — javra

It seems to me that the difference is simply temporal. Both events are required to occur in sequence, one before the other - writing a program and then running the program on a computer - for the image to appear on the screen. You can't run a program that hasn't been written.

Or otherwise if you want to refer to the 'real world' you will have to rely on statistics (and perhaps the inferred probability associated with those statistics.) — A Seagull

Then you need to ask why events in a dynamic world can be determined statistically. The fact that statistics exists, and is useful for something, must indicate something more meaningful than statistics exist and is useful. Why does it exist and why is it useful? What does it mean to be useful? The truer the map the more useful it is.

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul

I've offered at least three already. Address those. — creativesoul

You're not being very helpful. Your behavior indicates that you really aren't interested in what you put out in your OP. You seem to be showing that, at least for you, there is no method for

determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

I said "Logic". You disagree and claim that something else is needed, yet you can't even name the thing that is needed, or what logic is missing. The funny thing is that you keep using logic to make your case, and no other method.

Yes, but what determines which one you are? — bert1

It seems to me that we need to establish what a first person perspective is because you only know about other perspectives via your own.

It seems to me that via your first person perspective you acquire knowledge about others, that they seem to have other perspectives because the seem to behave as if they possess knowledge/first person perspectives as well, not just bodies.

So, what determines which one you are - logically organizing your observations using your first person perspective into a consistent worldview.

It is like asking how do we determine that things continue to exist once they leave our first person perspective (object permanence). Children logically organize their experiences in order to make sense of them. It only makes logical sense that the object that disappeared and now reappears is the same object because to if that weren't the case, then it would be impossible to make sense of objects in the first place and then solipsism would be the case and there would be no other first person perspectives, and saying that there is one that is mine would be incoherent.

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful.

Feeling safe is not being safe, by the way...

One can be told the 'right' sorts of things to believe and feel that they are safe, and yet not be. — creativesoul

So something else other than an exchange of subjective opinions is required for determining if a state of true safety exists.

Then the concept of "thinking" is different for us to the extent that we have different contextual-histories involving the concept of thinking. — Pantagruel

Not involving the concept of thinking, but how to communicate the concept of thinking to others. In asking for definitions we are asking where each of our boundaries for such a thing as thinking are - where we might be overlapping and where we aren't, and why, and we are forced to do so via language - symbolism - because we aren't telepathic.

When we find that we have no overlap (a contradiction), we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves if we are actually talking about the same thing - that our scribbles refer to the same bounded concept in each of our minds. In teasing out each other's usage we can discover conceptual failures of the thing we are talking about. The incorrect usage of words could be the result of not being aware of all the grammatical rules of a language, or it could be a manifestation of the deeper problem of how you see the world.

Think about learning a second language. You have the concepts down, but how to communicate them using new rules is something else.

If telling me that someone is brave and not-brave at the same time isn't an error in word usage, then it must be a conceptual error of what it means to be brave. The boundary of how you define bravery needs to be compared to mine to understand what aspects of reality (how people behave in stressful situations) we are really talking about when using words, like "bravery" - where the boundaries of our concepts that the scribble, "bravery" refers to.

It still stands that people behave in certain ways in stressful situations (fight or flight). It's simply the boundaries we each have established for defining where "bravery" begins and ends among those behaviors. For you, how much flight is too much to then say that the person is no longer brave? What if running allowed you to be brave another day? Bravery presumes the truth that people either run or fight for what they want. How much of each entails "bravery" is for each of us may be subjective, but if we are going to start giving out awards for bravery, then it needs to be defined as awards are not given to the not-brave.

So the question is, how is the "mine" property assigned to one of the first person perspectives? — bizso09

It seems to me that to say "mine" is a property of a first person perspective assumes that a first perspective is something owned by, or part of, something else. What would a first person perspective be owned by, or part of - your body? Is my brain, eyes and ears, without which wouldn't I have a first person perspective, mine?

If you are saying that "mine" is a defining property of a first person experience, then your first person experience is only part of what/who you are, as "mine" implies being part of a larger whole. So, are you a first person experience, or are you something that has a first person experience? If you are more than a first person experience, then your first person experience only defines part of what you are, and you'd have to look beyond the first person experience to determine who you are.

What I'm referring to is how language-use contradicts how we think about things.

If you find it possible to think about something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, or a married bachelor, in your mind that doesn't simply take the form of the scribbles or the sounds in saying it, then the very concept of "thinking" would be different for both of us because I can't think of something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, or a married bachelor, except thinking about the words themselves, which are just scribbles or sounds without referring to any conceivable thing.

A contradiction can be a thought of as a complete absence of any overlap.

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

Logic. — Harry Hindu

There's always the question of which logic is appropriate for the task — fdrake

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

"Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel

Looking at this, it seems to me that we've simply been talking past each other this whole time.

You and fdrake agreed that some form of logic is required, but which kind of logic was the question.

My point has basically been that any kind of logic you choose always resolves down to the law of non-contradiction being a necessary component of determining truth because in asking the question the OP is asking, it presumes that there is something that is best to believe and best not to believe, regarding some subject matter. I took "best to believe" to be the "useful to believe", and the truer the map, the more useful the map.

Maybe it should be up to creativesoul to clarify what he meant by "best to believe regarding some subject matter".

The difference between them, ergo, is not logic in the sense one side has used it well and the other side has not; rather the actual source of disputes is the assumptions each side has made in their arguments and assumptions are not a matter of logic. Assumptions are made in the low visibility fog of ignorance and you may just as well flip a coin to decide which ones you want to base your views on for logic is utterly useless in this regard. — TheMadFool

Part of being logical is limiting the amount of assumptions to a bare minimum - like things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. There comes a point in where we need to really think about what we say because we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context.

The whole point of condoning the idea that truth can be found in contradictions is to make it easier on the emotional control center of the brain. It is a means of deluding ourselves into thinking that what we believe is true, even when others think the opposite.

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel

You don't seem to understand what synonym means. If you look up the synonym of logical then you will get reasonable as an entry.

If significant information is missing. — Pantagruel

Which is to say that you didn't have all the relevant reasons to support your conclusion. What seems logical and reasonable actually wasnt - the difference between inductive and deductive logic. One is based on the laws of logic, the other on observation over time.

When reasonable reconciliation fails, is that a failure of the dialectic method, or the failure of one of the participants to fully grasp what is being said and talked about? If the former, then dialectic logic fails to aspire to do what you claim it does. If the latter, then you are advocating that the conclusion fits more with the law of non-contradiction, not some kind of multi-value logic.

Dialectic presupposes disagreement. — Pantagruel

Then it presupposes a truth - that disagreements exist.

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel

Then your quibble is with the scribbles, and not what the scribbles are about?

If it is logical that if A then B, then it is reasonable to believe B given A.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places because scientific experiments have established this as a fact. However this paradoxical result is not logical. In fact, it arguably contradicts all the rules of logic. — Pantagruel

Which is to say that it contradicts other reasons that we have for believing that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places. Science says one thing, our senses say another. So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation?

Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So, is the "reasonable reconciliation" in your

Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel

arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning?