|
|
|
|
#1
11-21-2007, 05:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: these debates remind me of...
The wording of your question and teh way you asked similar questions in this thread is very awkward to me. There are only two levels to your yes/no question.
The first is the gathering of all available and relevant information and utilizing it correctly through deduction and logically reasoning. There are no "levels of logic". An argument is either logical or not, assuming the same amount of knowledge. I think what you are getting into with your "levels of logic" is the second part of the question, which is simply knowing your opponent. The problem is that these two things--gather evidence and knowing your opponents are completely independent of one another, although the final answer does incorporate both. Once all information is obtained and optimally used, there is some percent chance of yes versus no. With 100% information, you can tell 100% yes or no. There is no debate or "logic levels" about the event--it can be determined by evidence and logic. And one can make logical or illogical arguments, but logic is an absolute term, there are no varying degrees of it--there is only the addition of new evidence. For the second part, you are trying to determine the likelihood of the yes/no answer based on another type of evidence--how well you know the other person. You are determining if he will do something. There only exist about 3 "levels of logic" in a two-sided situation such as your yes/no question. Once you pass level three, it just loops back to one. He knows that I know that he knows that---and so you just pick what you would have originally picked. With more variables or answers the levels might increase, but any further and you unnecessarily and erroneously complicate it. But again, this is an entirely different situation. Either the yes/no is answered with evidence and logical argument or it is an estimation of another person based on what you know, or some combination thereof, but there is certainly a distinct probability of yes or no depending on what each factor says, and it certainly may not be 50/50. I don't communicate well and I know this post might have been confusing but if you take anything away from it, let it be that an argument is logical or it is not. The rest is just knowing yourself and the other guy better than he knows himself and you. Also, the probability of an event you described where each succeeding level of "he knows that I know" type of situation does in fact have a 50/50 chance if each smarter person continues to go opposite. That is simply the definition of limits in mathematics. However that would NOT happen in the situation you described where there is a 100% right answer. Person number two or three, or anybody capable of logical argument and proper use of deduction and inference, would immediately get the right answer (assuming they have all the evidence) as would each of the rest of the people. 
|
|
#2
11-21-2007, 06:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
And one can make logical or illogical arguments, but logic is an absolute term, there are no varying degrees of it... [/ QUOTE ] right. this is essentially what i'm trying to say. (edit: after writing this post, i realize that what i was trying to say is more like: knowledge of truth is knowledge of truth, there are no varying degrees of it - but yes, the statement applies to logic also.) i know i've confused the ideas of logic and evidence. in my scenario, good logic based on bad evidence = bad logic. that is probably technically incorrect. but isn't it true that it is roughly equivalent to bad logic, for practical purposes? maybe it isn't. for instance, if my information is 5% complete, and i have perfect logic, i should be able to do somewhat better than 50% on a true/false question. if my information is complete, but wrong, then whether or not i'm right is completely dependant on how my wrong info relates to the truth. i don't think it is something that a probability can be put on. hmmm then the differences of opinion between logical people regarding a yes/no question with a definite answer (that is unknown) must be due to different perceptions of the evidence, or actual inconsistencies in the evidence itself. thus, rather than being at the mercy of limited logic, we are at the mercy of limited information! the two ideas are similar, but not the same. with no logical ability, we do have a 50% chance on a yes/no question. with poor information, we cannot have a definite probability! our answer is completely correlated with our information. we obtain information through perception... if i know that my perception is uninfluenced by reality, is it 50% to match reality on a yes/no question? i guess it would be, if there were a definite separation between perception and reality, but is there? what is reality beyond my perception of it? what now?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
