Logic and Reasoning (A college course)

[thing85]

Hi all,

I'm not a regular poster in SMP (actually, this is my first time posting here) so I'm not entirely sure if this thread is appropriate. If not, mods, please move it or let me know where I should repost it.

I'm currently a senior studying Accounting, but I'm considering taking a logic & reasoning course as an elective to strengthen my, well, logic and reasoning skills. I'm not sure if this is something worth my time, however, and I'm looking for feedback from people who have either taken a similar course or who have some kind of knowledge in a related area. What do you think about this kind of course? Is there much to be gained by taking it, in general? Obviously this varies from person to person, class to class, university to university. I'm just looking for some general comments to hopefully push my decision one way or another since I'm fairly uncertain right now.

Here's the brief description of the course:

PHIL 102: Practical study of logical reasoning; techniques for analyzing and criticizing arguments, with emphasis on assessing the logical coherence of what we read and write.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate any input.

[sweetjazz]

I personally think this kind of course is great because it introduces to abstract thinking and improves your ability to critically assess arguments. I should warn you, however, that many students find the material somewhat dry. It does sound as though your school is attempting to make the course a bit more engaging (hopefully without sacrificing too much rigor).

[Peter666]

I agree, and seeing how logic is the way the human brain works, it should be mandatory for any person attaining to higher education to study it.

[bunny]

I've done several courses like this and liked them. I would check whether it had a strong symbolic logic focus, which most people find rather dull or whether it was more intuitive. Both approaches can cover the same material but provide a radically different method.

[RJT]

85,

Yes, you should. I'll try to post a more detailed response later. But for now, it is definitely +EV (as they say) for getting through life.

RJT

[Utah]

Honestly, I think it is a terrible idea. College classes on the subject usually dont teach you to think - instead they take you some [censored] rules framework. I believe this actually hurts you ability to reason and apply logic.

The best way to develop these skills is to read a ton and constantly throw yourself into complex situations. Force yourself to think your way out.

fwiw - I think the best thinkers on logic and reason and the absolute best problem solvers are free spirits that think way outside of the box and who constantly challenge rules and assumptions.

The description of the class sounds horrifically painful. It is like taking a class "Compose masterpiece symphonies by analyzing the mathematical relationship of whole tones and half tones". It just doesnt make sense.

imho

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
85,

Yes, you should. I'll try to post a more detailed response later. But for now, it is definitely +EV (as they say) for getting through life.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT,

I look forward to your more detailed response.

Others: The potential negatives you mention are what I'm worried about. This is why I'm kind of torn in my decision.

[Copernicus]

One can learn either by learning and following the path laid by the succesful, or by learning and rejecting the path laid by those who have failed.

Spend a few hours searching and reading posts by Sharkey, and you will have excellent background for your course. You can decide which path it is for yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I think it is a terrible idea. College classes on the subject usually dont teach you to think - instead they take you some [censored] rules framework. I believe this actually hurts you ability to reason and apply logic.

The best way to develop these skills is to read a ton and constantly throw yourself into complex situations. Force yourself to think your way out.

fwiw - I think the best thinkers on logic and reason and the absolute best problem solvers are free spirits that think way outside of the box and who constantly challenge rules and assumptions.

The description of the class sounds horrifically painful. It is like taking a class "Compose masterpiece symphonies by analyzing the mathematical relationship of whole tones and half tones". It just doesnt make sense.

imho

[/ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I.e., you can't possibly go wrong! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[RJT]

85,

My hunch is that you already have to at least some (if not to a large) degree a logical working brain. (This might seem a simple statement that doesn’t really say much, but you’d be surprised that this is not a given with a lot of folk.) I assume you are at least somewhat logical for a few reasons. The primary reason is that you have chosen to study accounting.

Since you have chosen to study accounting, you probably like things orderly and things that flow step by step. Accounting is a very logical process. In fact accounting involves very little subjectivity. It is basically an exercise in objectivity. Isn’t that what logic is all about?

So, I assume that you are geared towards logical thinking/ already have an aptitude for it and enjoy it. (If you have/are none of these then you have at least been trained so far to think in an orderly fashion.)

A class in logic should fine tune the type of thinking you are already accustomed to as well as add new dimension to it. (There is the chance that it will actually seem all rather obvious to you - nothing new. But, the formal training won’t hurt you.)

Anyway, going through life with a logical mind makes most aspects of life easier. Obviously, one needs to think clearly in the business environment. It is also helpful in social settings - basically it will help you to carry on discussions without being, well “illogical”.

I should add a warning here. If you haven’t figured it out already, you will find there are a lot of folk you will meet in life who have no clue. Many of these people you will have to deal with on a daily basis. It is not always easy and one often needs the patience of Job in dealing/working with people who can’t follow simple trains of thought. Having more training in logic with this course might make your life even more exasperating than it already will be sometime. Such is life, though. (Of course, I jest.)

Another note: the course might not be all that interesting and you might regret “wasting” an elective with it. It will not be a waste though.

Best of luck,

RJT

[thing85]

RJT,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I have received mostly negative feedback on taking this course (i.e. it's a waste of time), but your reply may have convinced me to actually take it. Fortunately, I have the ability to drop the course if I really don't like it (I don't really need the extra hours).

My fear is that this specific course won't focus on the areas that would seem to be valuable to learn, but I guess I really won't know unless I try it.

As a side note, although accounting is a pretty logical, objective field of study, there is a fair amount of subjectivity in practice. I make that note only being a nit. It is, for the most part, objective in theory.

Thank you again for your thoughts.

[RJT]

Utah,

You might indeed be correct that the class might be rather tedious. But, it isn’t a literature course or art course or history class. It isn’t going to be a “fun” course, per se. The accounting major in the OP already knows this and is used to it - after 2 or 3 years of business classes. (I, too, warned him that it won’t be interesting as electives usually are.)

But, to suggest that thinking outside the box and having some formal training in logic are mutually exclusive confuses me. (And is probably incorrect, really.)

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But, to suggest that thinking outside the box and having some formal training in logic are mutually exclusive confuses me. (And is probably incorrect, really.)


[/ QUOTE ]
If you didn't use that logic thingy then you wouldn't be confused /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you provide an example of a problem where taking such a course would help?

If wanted, I can also provide lots of consulting/business logic problems that I dont think such a class would help.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you provide an example of a problem where taking such a course would help?

If wanted, I can also provide lots of consulting/business logic problems that I dont think such a class would help.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a course in how to reason. That helps with reasoning.

Pick any problem that requires reasoning and it will help.

chez

[RJT]

85,

My degree is in accounting, so I got you on the subjectivity/objectivity aspect of it.(But, you got what meant.) And I know what you mean about the nit part. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

85,

[ QUOTE ]
My fear is that this specific course won't focus on the areas that would seem to be valuable to learn, but I guess I really won't know unless I try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what Utah was referring to. It won’t teach you to think per se. But, what most of us who say the course is a good idea mean is that you will have the basics - and it will help you in thinking for yourself. And like I said, with your accounting background you will see that you already have a clue to thinking logically.

RJ

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you provide an example of a problem where taking such a course would help?

If wanted, I can also provide lots of consulting/business logic problems that I dont think such a class would help.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a course in how to reason. That helps with reasoning.

Pick any problem that requires reasoning and it will help.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or pick a problem that can be solved without reasoning/logic and Utah might be on to something.

RJT

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
But, to suggest that thinking outside the box and having some formal training in logic are mutually exclusive confuses me. (And is probably incorrect, really.)

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is that schooling is about rules, timelines, frameworks, deadlines, etc. It forces thinking into an incredibly narrow box, which is next to impossible to escape from for most people. I deal with logic problems on a daily basis and I constantly need to tell frustrated consultants who cant solve hard problems with traditional methods - "stop. Drop the rules. Free your mind and simply create."

Since the OP is an accounting guy I will provide some examples. Please tell me how formal logic training can solve the problems (and if you want try and solve the problems /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

A client tells you that they are trying to capitalize more dollars than they expense on large projects. The reason is that with expense the dollars hit the income statement immediately wheras capital can be depreciated over time. Is this a correct approach? What might be their reasoning?

A major department store chain wants to close 10 stores and you are asked to do the analysis. Your initial analysis shows that the 10 stores are all projected to lose money over the next 5-10 years. Management says, "close them". You say, "hold on. We are missing something". What could be missing? How does black-scholes play into it?

A company wants to close a product line because it is losing money. They ask you to verify. How do you analyze it?

A national healthcare company says they need to cutback on projects because they are 10 million over budget on IT projects. Is this smart? Why or why not? (hint: there is e nough info present to properly and completely answer the question)

These are the real world type problems an accounting type is going to face every single day. I am very curious how formal logics eduction can help this?

[Utah]

I provided examples in a different reply to this thread. Please explain how formal reasoning/logic training can help. Please take us inside the mind of someone before education and after education.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reasoning outside the box without knowing how to reason is like deviating from the correct play in poker without knowing the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]Can you provide an example of a problem where taking such a course would help?

If wanted, I can also provide lots of consulting/business logic problems that I dont think such a class would help.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a course in how to reason. That helps with reasoning.

Pick any problem that requires reasoning and it will help.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or pick a problem that can be solved without reasoning/logic and Utah might be on to something.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
What does she want?
Why is she upset?

Darn that's not right, they're problems that can't be solved with reasoning/logic, not ones that can be solved without it.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
One can learn either by learning and following the path laid by the succesful, or by learning and rejecting the path laid by those who have failed.

[/ QUOTE ]Or one can learn by going where no one has gone before and by blazing new trails.

[RJT]

Chez,

LMAO. I didn’t have in mind women when I warned 85 about life and having to deal with illogical folk and the fact that being a logical person is sometimes a curse vis a vis real life, But, you make a good point.

Cheers,

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I provided examples in a different reply to this thread. Please explain how formal reasoning/logic training can help. Please take us inside the mind of someone before education and after education.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am working up a response, Utah.

[RJT]

Utah,

You list examples of real problems that the OP might indeed face when he enters the business world. I agree that one needs to think outside the box (as well as inside the box, though) when looking for solutions.

Let’s take your first example about the capitalization/expense dilemma: One might be able to come up with various “outside the box” thinking here. But, one also has to think inside the box. You have to solve this problem within the parameters of tax law and GAAP (if a public company or a private company that needs a Certified Audited Statement -for its lenders perhaps.) You can’t just dream about a scenario that sounds good - unless you are running Enron. But so long as one is practicing tax avoidance and not tax evasion, any creative solution would be perfectly legal.

But here and all of your examples require “if this then that” thinking. If we close 10 stores we save dollars (stop losing dollars) but lose our customer base in those areas and employees lives are affected. Can we work out a solution to save the 10 stores and make a profit with them? Yes, I know what you mean that thinking outside the box is where a lot of real world problems are solved. But, the if this then that thinking is logic, pure and simple.

One might be “inspired” with an idea, a solution. But, that inspiration when implemented will actually have logic to it if is going to be a valid solution. The solution won’t be something that is illogical. It might be new, but it will still in the end work logically.

What you are saying, I think, is akin to whether one should study art or just do art. You have a good point. The great artists probably wouldn't need schooling (although I would guess most indeed studied it). They would still become masters. But, the art would still involve form and texture (logic and reasoning). In hindsight we can analyzed Picasso’s cubism. It started as thinking outside the box. It was an newly inspired art form, But, there is still logic to it. It is logic that separates it from a child’s drawing.

For the Picassos and Steven Job an art/logic course might not be needed. For the rest of us a bit of the basics will help with our doodling.

RJT

[Utah]

I think you had an excellent reply and I will respond more tonight as I only have 2 seconds.

The capitalization problem is pure logic and it is a straight puzzle. There is no outside the box thinking and the answer will be the same for everyone. There is a huge flaw in trying to favor expense instead of capitalizion. Therefore, a formal logic approach should be perfectly suited for this problem. However, I know highly trained MBA, CIOs, and CFOs miss this. I think it is one of the most common accounting mistakes. Assume no regulatory issues - what is the flaw?

The capital project issue can also be solved purely and it should be able to be solved with zero knowledge of finance or accounting. I would like to see someone with formal training take us through their approach. This problem is not terribly difficult to solve so it is a good test case type problem to analyze the issue at hand.

The Department store problem takes some wildly creative thinking but also some needs some very hard logic. This was the exact problem that I was asked to solve for the department store division (Marshall Fields) of Target Corp. I showed the stores shouldnt be closed because of option pricing and "invented" a cool model showing that closing the store was akin to executing options. At the option stage, incredibly complex logic came into play. If someone understands options please take a shot at using options to solve and I will show why I think formal training cannot help.

I would be really curious to understand your thoughts on the internal mindset of the untrained and the formally trained:

The untrained guy will think........

The trained guy guy will solve in a superior manner because he will think.......

[RJT]

I wasn’t really trying to answer your questions, per se. I looked at them briefly to get the gist of your post. I gave a quick answer to try to give you the gist of my point.

You are right about the capitalization/expense question being straightforward. My point was to show that we can look outside the box for solutions, but the solutions must remain sometimes inside the box (here within parameters of GAAP and IRS.) I am not quite sure what you are asking regarding the flaw in the logic – it depends on what one is trying to achieve. If one wants to show less profit in the current year, for tax reasons perhaps, we want more expense. If one wants to show more of a profit on the financials - for shareholders perhaps, we would rather capitalize if we are allowed to. It also depends on whether we are looking at current year financials or viewing them over a number of years. Everything is relative – your question doesn’t really give enough information regarding what we are trying to achieve. And all of this assumes that we have the option to expense or capitalize (e.g. with certain leases, if I recall, there used to be an option per IRS. I am not really up on tax code.) and whether we are talking tax or book financials.

I am not really sure we are disagreeing all that much really:

[ QUOTE ]
I showed the stores shouldn’t be closed because of option pricing and "invented" a cool model showing that closing the store was akin to executing options. At the option stage, incredibly complex logic came into play. If someone understands options please take a shot at using options to solve and I will show why I think formal training cannot help.

[/ QUOTE ]

“…incredibly complex logic…” That sounds like a good foundation in logic shouldn’t hurt.

Your “options” solution, I am going to guess, involves the 10 stores eventually showing a profit. If I am correct, then (and this is my point) your answer might have been inspirational and outside-the-box thinking of an idea for the solution, but the actual solution will be a logical one after all. Let’s here you answer and then we can dissect it.

[chezlaw]

How about this sort of thing (uk language so may not translate well)

Buying a house and taking a mortgage. Should it be interest only or repayment? Endowment or pension? Fixed rate or variable? You have no expertise and boodles of conflicting advice from untrusted experts.

What questions should you ask? How should you evaluate the answers with respect to your particular situation and goal?

chez

[RJT]

chez,

Your question sounds like a real one for yourself (and not a theoretical). Assuming that to be the case, some things to consider:

Interest only loans are sometimes used in the States. They are not all too prevalent. The situation in which one would go this route is an area of rising housing prices, like California. There one assumes with a relatively degree of certainty that when ones sells his home the price will be for a much great amount than what one bought it for. Where I live (Ohio) this cannot be assumed. In California one knows he will have made money on his house – he will have equity from the profit. In my area, if one wants to have equity (usually upon retirement) one would never go with interest only. One would build his equity over the years with his monthly payments. I imagine London is like California – so I expect you have the choice. The answer then becomes what you are looking for in the long run – how much profit/equity you want when you sell and when you will be selling. Also, what your financial situation is and what you budget can handle. In the states, mortgage interest is one of the few tax deductions left. This also plays a roll in decisions. I like to get as much of a deduction as I can - generally speaking.

Endowment/pension – we don’t have here. I am not familiar with what you mean.

Fixed/variable. I like knowing what I will be paying for x number of years. I always have purchased 30 year fixed mortgages with my houses and my refinanced mortgages (when rates came down). The answer here lies in how long you want to plan ahead and how much flexibility you have in your budget. Quite often you can save money with variable rates. If you don’t mind a little risk (it usually isn’t that great a gamble as there are caps on how high the rate can go), you might want to look at this. The questions you will need to ask is what are the variables with the rate changes? How often do they change the rate? What is the highest it can increase in one year (the cap). What is the highest it can increase over the life of the loan? Variables here have yearly caps and I think 5 year caps and/or life of loan caps – if I recall correctly. Usually, it is not a mistake either way – variable or fixed. It is more a matter of ones risk tolerance/comfort level. Like I said, it usually isn’t a huge gamble one way or the other. I prefer the fixed rate is all. Just make sure you know the parameters of the variable if you go that way.

Another important item here is the amount of ones down payment. When one doesn’t put down 20% or more a thing called private mortgage insurance kicks in. This is insurance that banks require the individual to pay. It covers the banks loss if the borrower defaults. It can be relatively expensive, so ask about this.

Overall, if you are dealing with reputable banks one just has to shop around and find the best rate. The structures are basically the same from bank to bank. If you credit rating is not that great, then this is where lenders like to mess with you. They make you jump through hoops and the costs can add up.

Oh yeah, one further thing. We have what we call points. One point is one percent of the amount of loan. Some banks charge points just to lend you money. Most banks, because of competition, don’t usually charge points anymore. But, check into this and any other costs associated with the loan. These hidden costs can cost you a few pounds at the time of borrwoing.

Any other questions let us know.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Your question sounds like a real one for yourself (and not a theoretical). Assuming that to be the case, some things to consider:

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that RJT. Was a real one for myself and many in the UK but you're about 20 years too late to help me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Its been a minefield in the uk because of the range of products and there's been much news of people being stiched up with high commission inappropriate products.

I think anyone with decent reasoning skills is able to end up with an okay deal (maybe not optimal without real expertise) which is why I picked it.

chez

[thing85]

Well, it seems to me that this thread has shown that with most "real life" decisions, both fundamental logic and "outside the box" thinking are required in varying degrees.

Going back to my original post's issue (I don't mean to derail the current conversation - please continue; I'm enjoying it), would a class like this usually take a more mathematical approach? Or is it more likely such a class would have more situational problems, like the ones mentioned in this thread? I know none of you have taken this specific class (unless you've taken PHIL 102 at the University of Illinois), but maybe you have some insight into the specifics of what a course like this usually teaches. I'm not expecting anyone to know for sure, obviously, but I'd like to hear what you would expect it to cover (generally speaking).

[bunny]

I've seen a few courses with similar blurbs. In my experience, they are either hardcore symbolic logic courses - teaching the axioms of logic, reducing arguments to symbols and then manipulating them to see if they are valid. Alternatively they analyse the arguments behind various popular schools of thought (I have done one focussing on pseudoscience and how to identify the logical failures in their claims - also a brief module analysing political arguments). I think unless you are a mathematical type you wont enjoy the first - the second type have more universal appeal but less content, they are more about practising critical thinking.

I would go and ask the lecturer-in-charge, it seems impossible to tell what their focus will be from that brief description.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right about the capitalization/expense question being straightforward. My point was to show that we can look outside the box for solutions, but the solutions must remain sometimes inside the box (here within parameters of GAAP and IRS.) I am not quite sure what you are asking regarding the flaw in the logic – it depends on what one is trying to achieve. If one wants to show less profit in the current year, for tax reasons perhaps, we want more expense. If one wants to show more of a profit on the financials - for shareholders perhaps, we would rather capitalize if we are allowed to. It also depends on whether we are looking at current year financials or viewing them over a number of years. Everything is relative – your question doesn’t really give enough information regarding what we are trying to achieve. And all of this assumes that we have the option to expense or capitalize (e.g. with certain leases, if I recall, there used to be an option per IRS. I am not really up on tax code.) and whether we are talking tax or book financials.

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is that most very logical people would simply address it like you did. They would be thinking from a constraints based approach - what are the tax laws, what are you trying to achieve, etc. They would want to get all the pieces and solve the puzzle but they wouldnt really want to think and spin. Very few people would think - "what does it mean? What is the difference between the two? How do I understand the tradeoffs? What do other companies do? Are there any creative approaches? How does it affect the company overall? Is one good and the other bad? "

This is a very easy problem, but this is what 90% of executives miss - expensing the item is a lot cheaper than capitalizing the item. The reason is that you get the tax shield immediately with expense where I have to spread the tax shield with capitalization. Thus, the shield of capitalization is dilluted by the net present value effect.

The problem in itself is not important. But, it illustrates that most people, with formal training, will never get to comparing the value of the two.

They will simply think:
1) What are the rules?
2) What are the constraints?
3) What is the end goal (e.g, raise/lower profit)?
4) How do I solve?

If possible, please discuss how you believe a formal class will get to the heart of this problem. How will a formal class help avoid the traps of steps 1 through 4? What mistakes do you think a person without formal training make in this problem that someone with training would not make?

[ QUOTE ]
Your “options” solution, I am going to guess, involves the 10 stores eventually showing a profit. If I am correct, then (and this is my point) your answer might have been inspirational and outside-the-box thinking of an idea for the solution, but the actual solution will be a logical one after all. Let’s here you answer and then we can dissect it.

[/ QUOTE ]The basics is that if I close a store today I am exercising an option because I could close the store at a future date. A store has terminal value - property, tax shield, inventory liquidation, etc. The problem is that if a store is losing money I must also deal with the negative cash stream.

So, I must balance:
1) Selling today - get terminal cash + avoid negative cash stream from loses
2) Selling future date - forgoing terminal cash + accepting negative cash stream from loses.

Before I tell the answer, please take a shot at using options to frame this problem. You should have enough info. Please illustrate how the tools/skills from formal training can help solve this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem in itself is not important. But, it illustrates that most people, with formal training, will never get to comparing the value of the two.

They will simply think:
1) What are the rules?
2) What are the constraints?
3) What is the end goal (e.g, raise/lower profit)?
4) How do I solve?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about different things in this thread. Formal logic courses don't teach that approach and afaik nor do critical reasoning courses.

You might get taught formal logic which is about valid arguments and you might get taught how to analyse arguments into premises and inferences, and to examine their validity.

Sorry OP, no idea what your course is like. Do they recommend a course book, that might give some idea.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about different things in this thread. Formal logic courses don't teach that approach and afaik nor do critical reasoning courses.

[/ QUOTE ]I researched a bunch of sites on courses and that is that appears to be what they are teaching - albeit not in the simplied way I described.

However, whether they teach that approach is of minor importance. I gave some specific examples of real world problems where I thought these types of courses would be a hinderance instead of helping. I would like someone to take a crack at showing how a formal logics class would help solve such problems. No one has done that yet.

Shouldnt someone with formal logic training be able to logically defeat my argument by logically dissecting my examples and thus logically show how such logic training is benificial and prove that it is logical for the original poster to undergo formal logic training. lol. Sorry, couldnt refuse.

[traz]

I posted in the thread you made in OOT, but this one seems to be garnering discussion, so I'll post here.

I've taken courses with the same description and similar course number, and it was primarily symbolic logic, and is not what you're looking for. I'm 99% sure this is the case here

[RJT]

Utah,

Let‘s take things one at a time. First the capitalization/expense question.

[ QUOTE ]
A client tells you that they are trying to capitalize more dollars than they expense on large projects. The reason is that with expense the dollars hit the income statement immediately whereas capital can be depreciated over time. Is this a correct approach? What might be their reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to say this is similar to posting a hold ‘em hand and asking what is my play or how was my play when the post only gives the board and the hole cards. You are not giving enough information - there is no context

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that most very logical people would simply address it like you did. They would be thinking from a constraints based approach - what are the tax laws, what are you trying to achieve, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you consult for Enron or what? The very first question is definitely what are the rules. I don’t care how outside the box you want to get, if it is illegal or against GAAP or the SEC, take your idea and file it.

What is the end goal? What are you saying? This is the whole point of the question. What are you trying to achieve? It is like asking me what is the best color to paint your house? I don’t know. What colors do you like? Where do you live? What type of house is it? Do you want a subtle look or a dramatic affect?

In my privately owned company my goal is usually bottom line. I don’t need to make my books look better this year for any stockholders. Bottom line in the current year or the bottom line is spread over time just so over the long run I maximize my dollars invested in my company, it won‘t matter which answer becomes the correct one. The context and what one is trying to achieve is relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
They would want to get all the pieces and solve the puzzle but they wouldn’t really want to think and spin. Very few people would think - "what does it mean? What is the difference between the two? How do I understand the tradeoffs? What do other companies do? Are there any creative approaches? How does it affect the company overall? Is one good and the other bad? "

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because I am in my own business these questions are obvious to me. When I/we make decisions, all of these things are taken in to account. In some decisions we look at immediate aspects and long term aspects. We look at bottom line things, we look at how things might affect a different family member, how things might affect the employees.


[ QUOTE ]
This is a very easy problem, but this is what 90% of executives miss - expensing the item is a lot cheaper than capitalizing the item. The reason is that you get the tax shield immediately with expense where I have to spread the tax shield with capitalization. Thus, the shield of capitalization is dilluted by the net present value effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily correct. If I am in the midst of a losing year, I will have no taxes. I don’t need the write-off. I might see that the next few years are going to look better. I might want the expenses in those years. Or maybe, the President and Congress are talking about tax changes that go into affect next year or over the next few years. If tax rates are going to be higher in the few years, I might actually want to capitalize if I am permitted to. I will save dollars by getting the expense when tax rates are higher

Perhaps I am trying to make my bottom line look better this year for some reason. Maybe I know next year I am going to have to go to the bank for money. Say my credit isn’t the greatest and the bank might be a little tentative in lending me money. I might want to capitalize this year and not have the expense on my income statement.

I am used to thinking in this manner so maybe we are saying the same thing. I grew up watching my dad run our business and was involved in it growing up. I then took business courses in college. I studied a bit of logic, although never took a logic course. I might be having a hard time distinguishing where I learned what from.

Let’s finish this question first before we move on to the options one. I really am not sure if we are disagreeing or in fact agreeing.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted in the thread you made in OOT, but this one seems to be garnering discussion, so I'll post here.

I've taken courses with the same description and similar course number, and it was primarily symbolic logic, and is not what you're looking for. I'm 99% sure this is the case here

[/ QUOTE ]

traz,

Do you have an idea of a course that would fit what he is looking for? I have been out of school since '79 (that's 1979) so I am a little rusty on this.

Perhaps, what he is looking for - what we have been discussing - can be found in the philosophy dept. (assuming this course is in the math dept.)

RJT

EDIT - His course is in the philo dept. Does this make a difference?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken courses with the same description and similar course number, and it was primarily symbolic logic, and is not what you're looking for. I'm 99% sure this is the case here

[/ QUOTE ]Do you mean A is subset of B and B is .......with all the little symbolic markers to denote relationships.
That is a bit of what I am assuming (as I took a course in college like that and it about killed me with boredom). If so, I am really curious how someone uses such logic to solve a standard type problem.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldnt someone with formal logic training be able to logically defeat my argument by logically dissecting my examples and thus logically show how such logic training is benificial and prove that it is logical for the original poster to undergo formal logic training. lol. Sorry, couldnt refuse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't need to refute it:

Either your argument is logically valid in which case a course in formal logic would help someone make and understand your argument, or your argument is illogical.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
A client tells you that they are trying to capitalize more dollars than they expense on large projects. The reason is that with expense the dollars hit the income statement immediately whereas capital can be depreciated over time. Is this a correct approach? What might be their reasoning?.....
I have to say this is similar to posting a hold ‘em hand and asking what is my play or how was my play when the post only gives the board and the hole cards. You are not giving enough information - there is no context

[/ QUOTE ]I am dogged tired as I have been working almost 12 hours straight so I might not be very clear at the moment - but I will try /images/graemlins/smile.gif I purposely did not give context. The reason is that the typical response of most people is to require the constraints and to stop all thinking until constraints are supplied. Most people cannot let their mind spin on it and reply with things like, "well it depends. There seems to be a lot of key issues to address. However, while I was spinning it around it came to me that capital seems more expensive than expense. You may want to live with the additional cost, depending on what you want, but it should be considered....."
Peoples minds simply cannot deal with ambiguity and they get plysically stressed when you ask them to do so. I am blame the rigidity of school which works hard to squash creativity.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you consult for Enron or what?

[/ QUOTE ]No, but I worked on some darn cool creative financing - japanese leverage leases, sale-leaseback schemes, etc. It was a lot of fun.

[ QUOTE ]
The very first question is definitely what are the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]I think it is absolutely the worst possible first question one can ask. Sadly it is the one everyone asks first, except me. People dont feel comfortable when they are not constrained. Dream first - then constrain yourself with the rules. Yes, certain rule absolutely must be followed. Just dont start there.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the whole point of the question. What are you trying to achieve?

[/ QUOTE ]We are not sheep to be led. Anyone worth there salt should be able to drive solutions as well. Lets say management gives you direction to go in a certain direction. One should not assume that they know everything or are aware of everything. If you just take their end goal you are not worth much. You should meet their goal but you should also think, "what might be a better end goal?" At the least, you provide them insight. No one ever EVER seems to want to go that next level.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps because I am in my own business these questions are obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]No better training ground for thinking - when your ass is truly on the line and it is your money /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This is not necessarily correct.

[/ QUOTE ]Correct. However, it was a simplified model.

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s finish this question first before we move on to the options one. I really am not sure if we are disagreeing or in fact agreeing.

[/ QUOTE ]I think we are disagreeing. As i originally said, I believe you learn from reading, observing, and throwing yourself into the fire. I just dont think a "thinking" class can help. I am still waiting for someone to provide a true defense of such classes by directly addressing my examples.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The very first question is definitely what are the rules.



I think it is absolutely the worst possible first question one can ask. Sadly it is the one everyone asks first, except me. People dont feel comfortable when they are not constrained. Dream first - then constrain yourself with the rules. Yes, certain rule absolutely must be followed. Just dont start there.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say the rules, I am talking about the law (in business it is usually IRS or GAAP or SEC) not the rule as in what is the norm. Not starting here is exactly why Enron happened. People got creative and then started to justify what they were trying to achieve. People came up with a creative ideas and did not follow-up with logic. They did not say “if we do this then this might happen (we might ruin peoples lives and end up in prison)”.

Coming up with a creative idea is good. But once the idea, the inspiration, the “eureka” enters the picture logic (must) takes over.

How this outside-the box creative thinking happens is probably more a matter of the person - how the individual doing the problem solving mind works - rather than a step by step “formula”.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…As i originally said, I believe you learn from reading, observing, and throwing yourself into the fire. I just dont think a "thinking" class can help. I am still waiting for someone to provide a true defense of such classes by directly addressing my examples.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, I have to go back to my analogy of art and art classes. Or to throw in a new analogy - learning a language. You are basically saying it is foolish to take a language course (and to some extent your point is valid) and one should just go live in the country of the language. I just don’t see it as an either or situation. I think that learning the grammar by taking a language course (akin to taking a logic course) certainly is not foolish.

[thing85]

I can't debate these specific issues, as my incomplete college experience and lack of real world work experience currently hinder my ability to. However (FWIW), I think this is an excellent, thoughtful discussion. Probably one of the best I've read on 2+2 in a long time, but that may be because my head has been in the gutter (OOT). Not a knock on OOT really (it is the most entertaining forum), but it's sometimes difficult to fire up a completely mature and in depth conversation.

With that said, you both (RJT and Utah) make good points, but I feel compelled to side with RJT's argument. As creative as you want to get, you really need to have the law in front of you at all times. Obviously, I can't speak from experience, but it seems that creativity in an industry that needs regulation in order to provide an adequate environment for business, investing, etc., serves to mislead more than anything. I don't know, maybe I've been brainwashed by learning about all of these corporate scandals.

Regardless of how you form something, the substance remains the same. An operating lease where the lease payments are expensed and the lessee essentially uses the asset for most of its useful life is nothing more, in essence, a transfer of the asset (or a capitalized lease). Now, granted, the FASB has passed the applicable rules that state when a lease must be capitalized rather than expensed, but my point should stand clear. Regardless of how you look at a transaction, there is always a constant, underlying economic reality. So, while you could get creative to make a company's financial statements look better in one year rather than another, it doesn't change the actual impact that the said transaction has on the company. You're essentially manipulating the financial statement users into seeing it the way that you want them to.

So, while with most things, creativity is essential to success and innovation, I don't think accounting issues are necessarily the best examples. Of course, you can argue how things are, in form, GAAP or SEC compliant, but the actual "spirit" of the accounting may not be.

I think the "Dream first - then constrain yourself with the rules" line is somewhat flawed, because the constraint will come through eventually. If you dream up an idea that does not fit the rules, what do you do? You have to go back and modify it so that it fits the rules. Like RJT mentioned with Enron, the company "dreamt first" and then justified it later to try and get it to fit within the rules. It's here that we begin to cross into ethical issues, but this isn't a discussion on ethics so I will leave it at that.

Utah, I liked your comment about goals. Rather than just find the goal and shoot for it, I agree that it's important to question, "is there a better goal?" I almost feel that this was implied in RJT's writing, however. When you look to consider, "what do I want to achieve?" you implicitly consider current goals and examine alternatives. While I agree that many people confine themselves to one goal and shut out everything else, this happens further along in the process. When RJT asks, "what are you trying to achieve?" I interpret this to be a very early question. This question comes before the defined end goal. This question considers alternate goals, or at least, it should.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you (Utah) with the way that a class could give the framework to answer such questions appropriately. Of course, I don't think you were expecting me to, given my original question in this thread.

[Utah]

Thing85, you are breaking my heart. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Your response tells me that you should run as far away from this class as possible as you are already boxing yourself in. I can see it so clearly.

I can't debate these specific issues, as my incomplete college experience and lack of real world work experience currently hinder my ability to - Constraint! And if you try to answer without the experience will the inexperience police arrest you? If you want to get sharper in solving this is where you do it - when you lack experience or memory and you are forced to think because there is no experience to guide you.

you really need to have the law in front of you at all times.Constraint! If you ignore the rules for awhile will you get locked up?

but it seems that creativity in an industry that needs regulation in order to provide an adequate environment for business, investing, etc., serves to mislead more than anything.Constraint! Why are you assuming creativity hurts in a regulated industry? What do you think creativity is? Why are you assuming it is evil?

I don't know, maybe I've been brainwashed by learning about all of these corporate scandalsConstraint! Creativity = bad things

So, while with most things, creativity is essential to success and innovation, I don't think accounting issues are necessarily the best examples.constraint! Creavity doesnt lend itself to my area. Finance and accounting lend itself incredibly well to creativity withour ever even bending gaap

Regardless of how you form something, the substance remains the same.Constraint! Things are as they seem. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Double Wrong!

So, while you could get creative to make a company's financial statements look better in one year rather than another, it doesn't change the actual impact that the said transaction has on the company.constraint! Its only about the"books" What about how I run the projects? What about the timing of activities? What about how the project is arranged in the first place?

I think the "Dream first - then constrain yourself with the rules" line is somewhat flawed, because the constraint will come through eventually.Constraint! Dreaming doesnt help because the constraints will kill you anyway. Why the need to confine problems to tight little boxes?

I wrote about a problem in an earlier response but I took it out because it sounded bad. However, I think it is insightful. I solved a problem yesterday that 100s of people were unable to solve after 2 years of effort. There was endless analysis produced - process flows, technical analysis, business impact studies, etc. My own team, which is the best, said it was a lost cause and we couldnt solve. We were overburdened with constraints as we work it one of the most regulated fields - healthcare. On this problem we had - HIPAA, legacy system constraints, customer contract restraints, data constraints, vendor constraints, inter-company fueding, technolgy hurdles, etc. There were a 1000 constraints. On the way home last night, I simply freed up my mind and danced with the problem. I played with it like a child and simply "painted" with no rules or boundaries. The solution hit me like a bolt of lightening, as it always does, and I simply knew I had the answer. I called the consultant who I assigned to run point on the problem. I said, "does this work. Beat it up". She thought for 10 minutes and said, "Yeah. That works. How in the hell?" I was no smarter or naturally more creative than anyone else on the project. I simply refused to let myself be constrained with the type of junk you listed above.

I bet if you did a study of top thinkers you would find that they are rarely focusing on constraints. Rather, they are dreaming of what is possible.


Note of Leases:

[ QUOTE ]
An operating lease where the lease payments are expensed and the lessee essentially uses the asset for most of its useful life is nothing more, in essence, a transfer of the asset (or a capitalized lease).

[/ QUOTE ]Really. Okay, you are the accounting/finance guy and I come and ask you to do a buy versus lease analysis. Please explain which maturity curve you are going to usefor WAAC? Of, new heard of a maturity curves in operating leases? Well, they use them in strategic planning at Target Corp. (at least when I were there). They are an incredibly innovative concept and they give you a way better picture of LvB decisions. And, of course, there is no violation of accounting principles anywhere.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you did a study of top thinkers you would find that they are rarely focusing on constraints. Rather, they are dreaming of what is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Focusing on constraints and considering what's possible are the same thing.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
... I said, "does this work…

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I am saying. Without being able to think of something in a logical fashion, your last question “…does this work” cannot be answered.

RJT

[thing85]

Utah,

I apologize if I am breaking your heart. When I talked about my inability to debate the specific issues appropriately, this stems completely from a lack of technical knowledge. You can get as creative as you want, but if you don't understand what a lease is (just an example), you can't possible get creative with it. Your brief paragraph about the maturity curve proves exactly my point - I don't even know what a maturity curve is, and therefore, I could be as creative as anyone but I am still constrained by my technical knowledge. Also note that while I said my inexperience prevents me from debating these specfic issues, I went ahead and took a shot at some of them anyway. I've been looking outside, but I don't think the inexperience police are here yet.

You seem to have a grasp on "thinking" but what strikes me as so unusual is how you make yourself out to seem like the only one who thinks this way. For example, that way that you "solved a problem yesterday that 100s of people were unable to solve after 2 years of effort." I can't help but wonder: are you human? This is not meant to be a flame of any sorts, but I'd imagine that you still are human and are subject to flawed thinking as much as anyone else. Why is it that no one else thinks about things the way that you do?

I guess my problem here is that I don't understand why constraints are inherently bad things. I do understand that in some situations, they prevent creative thinking, but why can't you be creative within the established boundaries?

I want to make a note on creativity and its relationship with experience. It seems that as one learns and gains experience in his or her own field, that person becomes more likely to step "outside the box" than someone who has just graduated college or is still in college (like myself). To suggest that a college education shouldn't teach you the existing constraints is absurd. Not everyone (in fact, not most people) is ready to step outside the box before they become experienced. Let me give you a very (very) simplified analogy:

When you learn to drive, you're taught to put your hands on "10 and 2" on the steering wheel. This is a constraint. You're taught that this is how it's done. However, once you're done with drivers' ed or wherever you're learning to drive and you head out on your own (with your new license and all), you learn that "hey, it doesn't matter where I hold my hands as long as I'm driving safe." You can, essentially, get creative with the way that you drive as you become more experienced.

Please, keep in mind that this isn't a perfect analogy. I am not in any way implying that driving a car is like preparing financial statements. I'm just trying to make the point that we are at very different levels right now in both education and experience. As much as you don't like to see it this way, there are inherent constraints where I am at right now compared to where you are at. That's not to say that there is no room for creativity where I'm at right now - it's just a matter of having the "tools" to be creative.

Now, on a less argumental note: I'm the student, you're the experienced guy who seems to know what he's talking about. What advice would you have for me to help myself "think without focusing on constraints?" I pride myself in being an excellent student and overall smart thinker, but it appears that I have a long way to go. I'd like to better myself. Any advice?

Thanks.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
When you learn to drive, you're taught to put your hands on "10 and 2" on the steering wheel. This is a constraint. You're taught that this is how it's done. However, once you're done with drivers' ed or wherever you're learning to drive and you head out on your own (with your new license and all), you learn that "hey, it doesn't matter where I hold my hands as long as I'm driving safe." You can, essentially, get creative with the way that you drive as you become more experienced.

[/ QUOTE ]

You driving analogy is exactly my point.

[RJT]

85,

Getitng back to your original question:

You really should check with someone who has either taken the course or teaches/taught it. The course sounds to me like it would be very useful to you. It does not sound in the least bit like a course in constraint thinking. Indeed it sounds like it would help you to look at things creatively, yet still rationally.

PHIL 102: Practical study of logical reasoning; techniques for analyzing and criticizing arguments, with emphasis on assessing the logical coherence of what we read and write.

And it in no ways sounds like:

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken courses with the same description and similar course number, and it was primarily symbolic logic, and is not what you're looking for. I'm 99% sure this is the case here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is a philosophy course, I find it hard to believe it is going to be very constraining.

I would be interested in hearing what the course actually teaches.

RJT

[thing85]

I can get back to you on that, most likely, early in 2007. I don't have the space in my schedule for the upcoming semester, but I'd like to take it the following semester if I do have space. If I remember around then, I'll follow up on this thread (if I can find it).

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, that way that you "solved a problem yesterday that 100s of people were unable to solve after 2 years of effort." I can't help but wonder: are you human? This is not meant to be a flame of any sorts, but I'd imagine that you still are human and are subject to flawed thinking as much as anyone else. Why is it that no one else thinks about things the way that you do?

[/ QUOTE ]I will tell you how I solved the problem and why no one else could. They all lived in the world of constraints and in the world of constraints everything is difficult. They lived in a world of unneccessary assumptions and fauly constraints. They were trying to solve using current methods and current approaches. I did none of these things.

I solved with purple dots. I simply asked myself if I could do what I wanted to do with purple dots. The answer was yes. I then thought - could I do it with green triangles as well. from there, I simply painted a vibrant thrilling picture in my head. I realized that the problem was really just a problem of purple dots, green triangles, and yellow circles AND I realized I could do whatever the hell I wanted to with dots and triangles - because, after all, they are just dots and triangles. I demystified the whole mess and painted something of immense value. Then, I balanced it in reverse. Would the employers love it. yes. Would the business team love it. yes. would the tech team love it. no, but they would accept as best alternative because it didnt break any foundational rules. Would legal love it. yes. Would marketing and communication love it. yes. I broke no rules. I simply viewed the problem differently and flipped it on its head.

When I presented it to the customer today I knew with 100% certainty they would love it. I started the discussion with talking about purple dots.

Yes, I think wildly differently than most people. And, as a result, I solve impossible problem after impossible problem. I could give you countless examples. But, I never really solve - I just dream and play and make paintings. I wish I could explain it better.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, on a less argumental note: I'm the student, you're the experienced guy who seems to know what he's talking about. What advice would you have for me to help myself "think without focusing on constraints?" I pride myself in being an excellent student and overall smart thinker, but it appears that I have a long way to go. I'd like to better myself. Any advice?

[/ QUOTE ]I would tell you what I tell my consultants - just paint. Jump into problems and simply solve as if you could make all the decisions and you could set the rules. Think like a child. Forget experience, it will limit you. I was doing cutting edge finance a month into my first finance job - there was no experience neccessary. Just into things you have no business trying to solve and where you are way out of your comfort zone. I did that constantly in my youth (and i still do it).

btw - being an excellent student probably hurts you because it means you function well in the constraining world of education. Smarts is not nearly as important as creativity imho.

[thing85]

Thanks for the reply. It's unfortunate that I can't see these things you describe in action, because then maybe I would understand it better.

[ QUOTE ]
btw - being an excellent student probably hurts you because it means you function well in the constraining world of education. Smarts is not nearly as important as creativity imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't put a negative spin on this too. Being excellent student doesn't mean that I only function well in a constrained environment. It means, given whatever environment, I'm willing to put forth the effort to worth through problems and see to it that I succeed. If you believe that something like this is only going to "hurt" me, well, then I don't know what to say. Smarts may not be as important as creativity in some respects, but the two are in no way mutually exclusive. Creativity is one form of intelligence, and some of the most creative people I know are also among the smartest.

You need both to succeed to the fullest extent. However, it's easier to succeed by being smart and not creative than being creative and not smart. Not every job benefits from creativity, but not being a dumb ass is pretty important no matter what you do.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't put a negative spin on this too. Being excellent student doesn't mean that I only function well in a constrained environment.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not against education and I think it is rather critical. There are classes I have taken that have changed my fundamental thinking on certain topics.

Being a good student doesnt mean that you only function well in a constrained environment. However, there are disadvantages to school. To suceed, you must learn to follow very specific rules. You memorize and regurgitate. You have set tests and set timelines. You can never really say - "hey I need a few weeks extra to noodle on something because I am on to something cool." You are usually in a position of lower status than the teacher and are thus taught that knowledge is king. Succeeding in this world forces you to conform. I am not saying education is bad. I am saying that there is a cost - often a steep one depending on the person.

I know about the world of good students. My sister (one year older) was 1550 SAT, 1600 GRE and she never got a B in her life. She was the perfect student. She also has an IQ somewhere around 175 and she can kill me in about any computational problem and her memory is unreal. I, on the other hand was a mediocre student and my IQ is nowhere near hers.

Yes, I can solve circles around her. The reason is that I got lucky - incredibly lucky. My first jobs in my career did not confine me and I am sure that is why i think differently. I simply worked in a strategy department where there were no titles and no roles except for our glorious leader. When a new project came up he would simply say, "who has time? Okay, you 3 go solve it". The project type never mattered - technology, finance, marketing, operations, etc. - and a person's experience never mattered. You simply went and solved it and you were driven by fierce competition. You simply didnt fail as it wasnt allowed. My second job was capital finance - but the CFO saw the skills I developed and he said, "go find any problem in the company you want and solve it. You have complete freedom" I worked closely with senior management teams at a very early age and that shaped my world completely.

See, I am not saying schooling is bad. I am just saying that your enviroment has massive effects on you. I was given complete freedom so I was "freed" to think openly and without constraints. If you live in a world of hard rules and in a world of hard constraints you will learn to think in a box.

I guess that summarizes my whole problem with the class. I just worry it will teach you to think with constraints. Now, if the class could teach you techniques to think with purple circles and could teach you to think how humans really think - with passion and emotion - I would be for the class. Heck, I would think it is mandatory.

Another thought - have you ever noticed car ads? Pay attention to what they show you. They often show the car flying on an open road with reckless abandon. They often sell freedom and excitement. The reason they do this is because they tap into the heuristical way that people really think. The sad truth is that people dont think logically - we were not meant to use logic. Otherwise, the car companies would sell you a logical argument. We were meant to dream and put ourselves in that car and to fly down the road with complete freedom. Remember the next time you see an ad that makes your heart crank up a bit and you find your self dreaming and thinking "man, that would be sweet!" That is the feeling you want when you are solving a problem. Because, again, you cease to solve and you start to creative and that is where the magic happens.

[thing85]

Utah,

You certainly provide convincing examples to support your points here. I'm just wondering - is it possible for the best solution to come from a constraints-based approach? You talk constantly as if it cannot and that it's a horrible way to approach things.

Isn't it possible that creativity, depending on the individual's mind, could lead to a poor solution? While your creative thinking could be desirable, another person's may not be. How can you say that the creativity approach works best for everyone? How can it always produce a desired outcome?

Certainly, creativity itself is constrained by the individual's intelligence. You aren't going to create a groundbreaking thought in economic theory without the constrained knowledge that goes into understanding economics.

Finally, you act as though your way of thinking came only from luck. How can you advise myself or someone else to "think outside the box" if you have just stated that the only reason you were able to is because of luck? Do I need to rely on falling into a career that gives me the ability to develop my creative thought? Or is there another way?

I look forward to your response.

[Nicholasp27]

can anyone recommend any good resources (websites, books, etc) to sharpen non-symbolic logic skills?

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]

fwiw - I think the best thinkers on logic and reason and the absolute best problem solvers are free spirits that think way outside of the box and who constantly challenge rules and assumptions.


imho

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you're confusing thinking logically with thinking creatively.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

fwiw - I think the best thinkers on logic and reason and the absolute best problem solvers are free spirits that think way outside of the box and who constantly challenge rules and assumptions.


imho

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you're confusing thinking logically with thinking creatively.

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole thing seems very confused, I think he has completely the wrong idea about what is taught in philosophy logic courses.

Advising against the course because it will be constraining in some way is bad advice.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing seems very confused, I think he has completely the wrong idea about what is taught in philosophy logic courses....Advising against the course because it will be constraining in some way is bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]If I am wrong, then make a defense of such courses. If such courses are valuable then fashioning such a defense should be easy. I gave specific examples to use. If you dont like mine then choose your own. Take a problem and show how such a class would help. Take us in the mind of someone trying to solve the problem without taking a logic class and compare it to the mind of someone trying to solve the problem who has taken the class.

Maybe I am wrong, but no one has offered a defense of these type of classes or have provided a single real life example where these classes will help. Lets discuss from a basis of results, not simple opinion as to whether they are valuable or not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing seems very confused, I think he has completely the wrong idea about what is taught in philosophy logic courses....Advising against the course because it will be constraining in some way is bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]If I am wrong, then make a defense of such courses. If such courses are valuable then fashioning such a defense should be easy. I gave specific examples to use. If you dont like mine then choose your own. Take a problem and show how such a class would help. Take us in the mind of someone trying to solve the problem without taking a logic class and compare it to the mind of someone trying to solve the problem who has taken the class.

Maybe I am wrong, but no one has offered a defense of these type of classes or have provided a single real life example where these classes will help. Lets discuss from a basis of results, not simple opinion as to whether they are valuable or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did. Either your arguments are logical in which case you are using the very skills you deride or your arguments are illogical.

Which is it?

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I did.

[/ QUOTE ]Here is the only thing possibly relative that you posted. However, you did not take us into a pre and post class mindset. But, either way, lets use this as a basis. Tell me how the class will help solve your motrgage problem. Are you possibly suggesting that someone who took such a class will be better able to choose the proper mortgage than someone who didnt take the class? If so, how.

[ QUOTE ]
Buying a house and taking a mortgage. Should it be interest only or repayment? Endowment or pension? Fixed rate or variable? You have no expertise and boodles of conflicting advice from untrusted experts.

What questions should you ask? How should you evaluate the answers with respect to your particular situation and goal?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Either your arguments are logical in which case you are using the very skills you deride or your arguments are illogical

[/ QUOTE ]I did not deride logic. I derided formal teaching of logic in its current form and I explained very carefully why I thought so.

I have a lot of thoughts of how most people and how I would solve the mortgage problem. But, I would like to have your insight first.

[thing85]

Utah,

Not to be a nit or anything, but you never replied to my previous post in this thread. No rush; just want to make sure you get around to it when you have the time.

Thanks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of thoughts of how most people and how I would solve the mortgage problem. But, I would like to have your insight first.

[/ QUOTE ]
so you go to an 'expert' for advice and they present you with an illustration (as they like to call it) of how much your monthly payments are likely to be and how wonderful the benefits of their scheme are.

How do you make sense of the illustration?

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be a nit or anything, but you never replied to my previous post in this thread. No rush; just want to make sure you get around to it when you have the time.

[/ QUOTE ]lol. Yes, I will answer it but that will take a bit more time. It is 3:00 am and I cant sleep because my mind is spinning a project problem. The other reply was much easier to respond to.

[Utah]

I was researching the subject of teaching logic and I came across this article. It articulates very well the type of thinking I am talking about. These are the types of paintings in my head (e.g., purple dots and green triangles) and it was weird to see. His are for a different problem and they are a different form - but they are also exactly the same. It is like I can "see" him think. Or maybe it is just 3:30am and I havent slept and I am dillusional /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The article seems to speak to our contridiction in this thread - he used creativity to try and solve logic itself.

"like his notation, Zellweger’s working methods are delightfully unconventional. While constituting a genuine research project in logic, his notebooks (made between 1953 and 1975) have remarkable visual appeal, passing through phases reminiscent of Russian Constructivism, outsider art, concrete poetry and pop. These days we accept outsider artists, and are perhaps aware of outsider scientists, but Zellweger may be the first we could define as an outsider logician."

"The whole way logic is taught today, as a system of purely abstract signs that only college-level students can understand, is completely backward."

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/18/crystal.php

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not deride logic. I derided formal teaching of logic in its current form and I explained very carefully why I thought so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a long thread so I may have missed it but I think your mistaken about the nature of the course. Did a quick google and this is the first I found.

[ QUOTE ]
Course Content: Our primary focus is on language and argumentation as used in common circumstances, the Humanities and the Sciences. For our purposes, we will consider an argument as a set of statements intended to provide reason to believe something. We will learn methods for identifying and evaluating the structure of inductive and deductive arguments. As we explore logic and principles of reasoning, we will learn how language is used and how to evaluate various types of arguments that may occur in advertising, political discussions, several fields of science, and we will occasionally consider argumentation that shows up on television or the web. Special attention will be given to probability theory, scientific reasoning, and formalizing argument structures.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the type of content I expect the course will cover and its extremely useful both acedmically and in dealing with real problems such as making sense of a mortgage illustration, understanding the case for invading Iraq, evaluating your proposed solution for business problems etc etc.

I don't think it has anything to do with teaching a restricted approach for solving problems as you fear.

chez

[RJT]

Utah,

This is a quick response, as I am also pressed for time.

First of all the OP never said he wanted to take the course in order to be able to solve problems better.

If nothing else logic skills are needed in order to see if the purple dot solutions will work (and therefore the course should be beneficial). Once one comes up with an idea - a solution to a problem in the form of purple dots - one needs logic to see if it will fly.

Using your own words: “I called the consultant who I assigned to run point on the problem. I said, "does this work.” Do you think she used pink quadrangles to figure out if your solution will work? For some reason I would wager that she is going to use reasoning skills to check your idea.

Your methodology sounds interesting and I would love to hear more in-depth description of it; but really, I don’t see the relevance to the original question.

Furthermore, your whole argument is analogous to whether an aspiring artist should take an art class or not. You are in essence saying that it is foolish to do so. That once one does he will no longer be free to just paint. He will be constrained by form that he has been exposed to. There might be some merit to this thinking, but no proof that it is true.

(The rest of my post here is meant to be facetious):

You thoughts really belong in the BBV forum or perhaps in OOT where most of the guys are smoking pot.


RJT

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]

You thoughts really belong in the BBV forum or perhaps in OOT where most of the guys are smoking pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh.

In all seriousness, I would like to learn more about Utah's thought process as well. I'm fine with this discussion moving away from my original post. It has been quite an interesting read so far.

[RJT]

Yes, I am interested to hear more of a description of his process. For two reasons 1) I find it intriguing and 2) I am not so sure we really won’t find it to be a logical process after all. It might be that he is just speaking a different language in his process. That instead of a process in ones mind using thoughts and words, he uses images and color. The process might still be a step by step logical flow.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
but I'm considering taking a logic & reasoning course as an elective to strengthen my, well, logic and reasoning skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets step back to the original question as my comments are meant to address exactly the problem above - even if I am not making my case convincingly. So, let me summarize why I think such a class will not help:

1) One can not be taught how to think. Thinking is far more a matter of innate ability, environment, and past experience
2) The best way to learn and develop logic and thinking skills is to read everything and to throw yourself at problem after problem and to keep putting yourself into hard and unfamilar territory. I constantly did this early in my career. For example, I joined the Board of an African American non-profit so I could experience what it was like to be the only person of a different color in an environment.
3) People are not designed to solve problems with logic and reason - at least not in the way implied. People are not meant to be orderly thinkers and problems dont lend themselves well to order. I believe people are meant to solve problems with emotions, instinct, dreams, heuristics, neural nets, etc. Think of the decisions you make in a day and how many are orderly. Heck, just think how your mind is responding to my list of objections. You are probably not doing some orderly point by point comparison and refutation analysis. Rather, you are probably thinking something like - "He is nuts! He doesnt get it! What a moron! How can he not see the value of such a class!"
4) People are confined to order and process and the human spirit is killed by institutions. People are taught that breaking the mold will get you punished. School is a big problem in this area. You get good grades by conforming, not by being brilliant. Thus, you learn to conform. I deal with this every day - people sadly CRAVE boundaries and rules and limits because of their past. This craving kills innovation and true problem solving.

Logic = good, but it is simply a tool in a whole arsenal of weapons to solve a problem
School (as it relates to thinking) = bad, teaches you to conform and teaches you to form unbreakable boundaries
Dream, think, solve, experience, experiment = far superior to studying logic in a controlled environment

[ QUOTE ]
That instead of a process in ones mind using thoughts and words, he uses images and color.

[/ QUOTE ]My mind does not use a process or logic, at least not in the sense you imply. I do not deal in boundries. I simply dream and paint and love it all. There is never "if this then that" type of thinking. Rather, the solution magically appears and it is the best feeling in the world. I would use words like passion, love, desire, childish, dancing, intuitive, etc. to describe my thinking. I would never use words like logic, process, reason, etc. to describe it.

And, before you think I am nuts, you have all been this way - when you were a child and you laughed and played and dreamed up wild fantasies. You did not confine yourself in the least.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, your whole argument is analogous to whether an aspiring artist should take an art class or not. You are in essence saying that it is foolish to do so. That once one does he will no longer be free to just paint. He will be constrained by form that he has been exposed to. There might be some merit to this thinking, but no proof that it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]I dont think it is analogous to your statement at all. What I think it is analogous is to telling an artist how he must think about art in a certain way or that he must go through a certain process to create his art.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, your whole argument is analogous to whether an aspiring artist should take an art class or not. You are in essence saying that it is foolish to do so. That once one does he will no longer be free to just paint. He will be constrained by form that he has been exposed to. There might be some merit to this thinking, but no proof that it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]I dont think it is analogous to your statement at all. What I think it is analogous is to telling an artist how he must think about art in a certain way or that he must go through a certain process to create his art.

[/ QUOTE ]


If this is what you think the course is like than I cannot say that I disagree with your point. I don’t envision a logic course try to teach someone how to think, though - I could very well be wrong. I envision it as giving someone tools to think. This does not imply that one must always use only these tools to think. Rather, these tools are available to the individual if/when he wants/needs to use them.

I do agree with you that (not necessarily always, but quite often) you can’t really teach someone to think. I really think it is like being neat or disorganized. As a somewhat neat-freak I laugh at folk who try to get organized every so often. One either is that way or not. One can get organized every now and then. But it becomes only a matter of time before his environment is back to the usual chaos. (Btw, I am not implying that being neat is the better way to be. In fact, it is often a curse.)

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I'm considering taking a logic & reasoning course as an elective to strengthen my, well, logic and reasoning skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets step back to the original question as my comments are meant to address exactly the problem above - even if I am not making my case convincingly. So, let me summarize why I think such a class will not help:

1) One can not be taught how to think. Thinking is far more a matter of innate ability, environment, and past experience



2) The best way to learn and develop logic and thinking skills is to read everything and to throw yourself at problem after problem and to keep putting yourself into hard and unfamilar territory. I constantly did this early in my career. For example, I joined the Board of an African American non-profit so I could experience what it was like to be the only person of a different color in an environment.
3) People are not designed to solve problems with logic and reason - at least not in the way implied. People are not meant to be orderly thinkers and problems dont lend themselves well to order. I believe people are meant to solve problems with emotions, instinct, dreams, heuristics, neural nets, etc. Think of the decisions you make in a day and how many are orderly. Heck, just think how your mind is responding to my list of objections. You are probably not doing some orderly point by point comparison and refutation analysis. Rather, you are probably thinking something like - "He is nuts! He doesnt get it! What a moron! How can he not see the value of such a class!"
4) People are confined to order and process and the human spirit is killed by institutions. People are taught that breaking the mold will get you punished. School is a big problem in this area. You get good grades by conforming, not by being brilliant. Thus, you learn to conform. I deal with this every day - people sadly CRAVE boundaries and rules and limits because of their past. This craving kills innovation and true problem solving.

Logic = good, but it is simply a tool in a whole arsenal of weapons to solve a problem
School (as it relates to thinking) = bad, teaches you to conform and teaches you to form unbreakable boundaries
Dream, think, solve, experience, experiment = far superior to studying logic in a controlled environment

[ QUOTE ]
That instead of a process in ones mind using thoughts and words, he uses images and color.

[/ QUOTE ]My mind does not use a process or logic, at least not in the sense you imply. I do not deal in boundries. I simply dream and paint and love it all. There is never "if this then that" type of thinking. Rather, the solution magically appears and it is the best feeling in the world. I would use words like passion, love, desire, childish, dancing, intuitive, etc. to describe my thinking. I would never use words like logic, process, reason, etc. to describe it.

And, before you think I am nuts, you have all been this way - when you were a child and you laughed and played and dreamed up wild fantasies. You did not confine yourself in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) You meant to say that people can't be taught how to think clearly, right? Or reason well. But studies by psychologists have shown the opposite. People not only have to be taught how to think clearly, they actually have to go through distinct stages in the process to learn how to reason more and more abstractly.

(2) Reading a lot and thinking critically about what you read can help, but actually studying logic (both formal and informal logic) and learning how to apply what you've learned in the critical analysis of what you're reading helps even more.

(3) I'm not sure why you think logic (in the broad sense) and thinking creatively are mutually exclusive. I see them as complementary. Creativity is more highly valued among philosophers than logical acumen, but it doesn't matter how creative you are if your arguments make no logical sense.

(4) Being forced to think formally and comply with rigid rules is not good if that's all you're allowed to do. But a good college-level teacher will promote and encourage creativity and 'thinking outside the box', and in philosophy that is highly valued.

[RJT]

I certainly agree with this statement: “ The best way to learn and develop logic and thinking skills is to read everything and to throw yourself at problem after problem and to keep putting yourself into hard and unfamiliar territory.” This really is called wisdom I think. It comes with experience and age. I am not sure a young person can have wisdom. I think that most older folk have at least some.


[ QUOTE ]
People are not designed to solve problems with logic and reason - at least not in the way implied. People are not meant to be orderly thinkers and problems dont lend themselves well to order. I believe people are meant to solve problems with emotions, instinct, dreams, heuristics, neural nets, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think the above is true at all. It sound like it is true for yourself, and therefore would seem to be true as a rule.

[ QUOTE ]
Think of the decisions you make in a day and how many are orderly. Heck, just think how your mind is responding to my list of objections. You are probably not doing some orderly point by point comparison and refutation analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly how I am trying to resolve this discussion. I am taking your points step by step and trying to get a handle on what you are saying.


[ QUOTE ]
Rather, you are probably thinking something like - "He is nuts! He doesn’t get it! What a moron! How can he not see the value of such a class!"

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary. I am quite interested (as is the OP) in trying to understand you (or your process, that isn’t a process.) It is like you are speaking Spanish and I don’t understand the language, but eventually I will get what you are trying to convey.


And for the record, I don’t think you nuts at all. In fact you remind me of my late brother. He always had great ideas. He was ahead of his time in quite of few things he pursued. His problem was that he had great ideas, but his heads was, well, kind of in the clouds. He lacked the step by step, logical expertise to actually carry out most if his ideas. An idea can be ingenious, but logic must eventually enter the picture for the idea to be of any use.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) You meant to say that people can't be taught how to think clearly, right? Or reason well. But studies by psychologists have shown the opposite. People not only have to be taught how to think clearly, they actually have to go through distinct stages in the process to learn how to reason more and more abstractly.

[/ QUOTE ]I disagree, but I could be wrong. Please provide evidence to support your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) Reading a lot and thinking critically about what you read can help, but actually studying logic (both formal and informal logic) and learning how to apply what you've learned in the critical analysis of what you're reading helps even more.

[/ QUOTE ]Please provide evidence as to why uoi think so. I posted some examples in this thread. Please take us through the problem(s) from the point of view of someone who has studied logic and through the POV of someone who has not, assuming all else is equal.

[ QUOTE ]
'm not sure why you think logic (in the broad sense) and thinking creatively are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]I do not think that at all and in fact I believe the opposite. In fact, a major problem I have with the teaching logic is the notion of splitting out logic on its own as a means of solving problems.

[ QUOTE ]
(4) Being forced to think formally and comply with rigid rules is not good if that's all you're allowed to do. But a good college-level teacher will promote and encourage creativity and 'thinking outside the box', and in philosophy that is highly valued.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, if you have a great teacher and the class is designed well then a class may be very valuable. I am clearly making assumptions as to the nature of the class. My assumptions are heavily influenced by the simple fact that I stuggle every day with getting my heavily educated consultants (who have taken logics classes) to truly think.

[thing85]

I really would like to understand this thought process. What bugs me is the fact that you, in defending your way of thinking, make the assumption that creativity will lead to the optimal solution. This cannot possibly be true (all the time). There have to be times when creative thinking either gets you nowhere or takes you down the wrong path.

I would further argue there are many situations where a logical, "constrained" thinker will arrive at the appropriate solution more efficiently than the creative thinker. Certain boundaries were designed to lead people in the correct direction. I agree that constraints can do more harm than good. But I also believe that creativity has its shortcomings as well. Regardless of how you approach decision-making, the individual is the determining factor. Some people couldn't use creativity to find their way out of a paper bag. Others find themselves with creativity as the only option (like you). Some people function better under constraints. Given the choice between creative thinking and a logical, constrained thought process, that particular person might just find a better outcome with the constrained thought process.

A smart person can use creativity to his or her advantage in decision making, but someone who lacks intelligence does not automatically make smarter decisions using creativity. What I've decided in this thread is that you have basically proved to us that "constraint-free," creative thinking is what works best for YOU.

I’m still in the mindset that creativity is a tool among others on a belt of thought processes. Thinking only without constraints of any sort cannot ALWAYS be the correct way to go.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(1) You meant to say that people can't be taught how to think clearly, right? Or reason well. But studies by psychologists have shown the opposite. People not only have to be taught how to think clearly, they actually have to go through distinct stages in the process to learn how to reason more and more abstractly.

[/ QUOTE ]I disagree, but I could be wrong. Please provide evidence to support your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't give an argument, I just made a claim. If you deny that there are such studies you should look yourself to see if you are right.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) Reading a lot and thinking critically about what you read can help, but actually studying logic (both formal and informal logic) and learning how to apply what you've learned in the critical analysis of what you're reading helps even more.

[/ QUOTE ]Please provide evidence as to why uoi think so. I posted some examples in this thread. Please take us through the problem(s) from the point of view of someone who has studied logic and through the POV of someone who has not, assuming all else is equal.


I have no idea what you mean by 'take us through the problem from the point of view of someone who has studied logic and the point of view of someone who has not.' Even if I could figure it out it seems like a pointless exercise to me. It just stands to reason that someone who has both a creative mind and also understands both formal and informal reasoning is better equipped for problem solving than someone who does not have both of those skills or abilities. If you're claiming that studying logic will stunt a person's ability to think creatively then you need to provide evidence in support of that claim.

[ QUOTE ]
'm not sure why you think logic (in the broad sense) and thinking creatively are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]I do not think that at all and in fact I believe the opposite. In fact, a major problem I have with the teaching logic is the notion of splitting out logic on its own as a means of solving problems.

I don't know anyone who teaches logic who thinks that we should approach problems exclusively from the standpoint of, say, formal logic. Some problems are problems in logic, some are not. Even problems in logic are better solved by thinking creatively though.

[ QUOTE ]
(4) Being forced to think formally and comply with rigid rules is not good if that's all you're allowed to do. But a good college-level teacher will promote and encourage creativity and 'thinking outside the box', and in philosophy that is highly valued.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, if you have a great teacher and the class is designed well then a class may be very valuable. I am clearly making assumptions as to the nature of the class. My assumptions are heavily influenced by the simple fact that I stuggle every day with getting my heavily educated consultants (who have taken logics classes) to truly think.

That's a rather small sample to be making such broad generalizations from. You have educated clients who took logic courses and who aren't good at solving the problems they're dealing with. What do you take this to show exactly?

[Utah]

So, you have said exactly nothing at all havent you.

[chezlaw]

Utah,

You haven't repsonded to the question of how anyone is supposed to make sense of proposed solutions.

Faced with your 'purple dot' generated solution, mortgage proposal (or anything else) how does the proposee make sense of it?

chez

[prana]

Is this true:

Running over nails causes your tires to go flat.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this true:

Running over nails causes your tires to go flat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

Does it relate in anyway to my post?

chez

[prana]

It is a basic example of what this course, or at least the one I took at my college would teach a person.

It is actually an example I just pulled from the book we used for my course. I liked this course alot and didn't sell my book back because I thought I would refer back to it at times.

Didn't mean to reply to you specifically just hit reply on the last posters post

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a basic example of what this course, or at least the one I took at my college would teach a person.

It is actually an example I just pulled from the book we used for my course. I liked this course alot and didn't sell my book back because I thought I would refer back to it at times.

[/ QUOTE ]
okay.

Perhaps you'd care too expand on the example. Any chance of you posting the syllabus.

chez

[prana]

Don't have the syllabus, it was summer school course two summers ago.
I wanted to hear a few answers first but I am going out for the night and might not be around the forum for a few days. I haven't been playing poker much since the new yearas I was getting carpal tunnel symptoms. I got an evoluent mouse which is helping so I started playing a bit again.


Answer:

No, it is a false general causal claim. I run over nails plenty of times and they don't cause my tire to go flat. To make it a true argument we would have to change it to........

Running over nails CAN cause your tires to go flat.

This is really a very basic example, maybe I'll try to find another one for y'all.

[prana]

O.K. Here's a little more complex example:

Country Joe MacDonald was a rockstar who wrote songs protesting the war in Vietnam. He was interviewed on NPR about his motives for working to establish a memorial for Vietnam War soldiers in Berkeley.

He responded:

"Blaming soldiers for war is like blaming firemen for fires."

Is this comparison which is meant as an argument really a good analogy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
O.K. Here's a little more complex example:

Country Joe MacDonald was a rockstar who wrote songs protesting the war in Vietnam. He was interviewed on NPR about his motives for working to establish a memorial for Vietnam War soldiers in Berkeley.

He responded:

"Blaming soldiers for war is like blaming firemen for fires."

Is this comparison which is meant as an argument really a good analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]
poor analogy: some wars would never start if there were no soldiers.

plus soldiers fighting war is war whereas fireman fighting fire is not fire.

chez

[prana]

Word!

Also:
Firemen didn't start fires, and soldiers start wars.

Without firemen there would still be fires.
Without soldiers there wouldn't be any wars.

There is a dubious premise here.

Anyway, that is the types of things we learned in the course I took. Of all my liberal requirements I thought it was one of the best classes I took.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
My mind does not use a process or logic, at least not in the sense you imply. I do not deal in boundries. I simply dream and paint and love it all. There is never "if this then that" type of thinking. Rather, the solution magically appears and it is the best feeling in the world. I would use words like passion, love, desire, childish, dancing, intuitive, etc. to describe my thinking. I would never use words like logic, process, reason, etc. to describe it.

And, before you think I am nuts, you have all been this way - when you were a child and you laughed and played and dreamed up wild fantasies. You did not confine yourself in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man. I don't think you are nuts, I think you are a hippie.
This has nothing to do with thinking critically......but you did make me feel obligated to post my favorite hippie joke of all time.

What did the hippie say when he ran out of drugs?

<font color="white"> Damn, this music sucks!!! </font>

[Utah]

I was in a discussion on OOT and looking up an author when I can across this article on thinking. I thought it was very interesting.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IUusjQ2glE8WmawdDKV1hQ==