Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by unique_username
unique_username  ·  865 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Not sure how this website works but here are todays thoughts

>A person who is not operating on logic, but instead trusts their emotions is going to be someone who will often be wrong where logic succeeds, but they will also be correct where it fails.

The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", which means according to the validity. From the term itself logic is impossible to fail in the search for truth and proper reasoning evaluation.

>A big example of this, and I'm sorry for this, is eugenics

Your example is illogical and invalid, and doesn't imply a fail in logic as a tool of derision making (a possible reason for this, could be the fact that you might act directly affected act by emotion). Through empirical knowledge it was proven how to change human characteristics wiyh the proccess of breeding. If we institutionalized using logical a system where "X" characteristics are better for "Y" reason, we can act n a possible way to accomplish it. If some people have a (meaningless) cynical negative emotional reaction to it and therefore such an act becomes social unaccepted and therefore doesn't be let to happen. Then is not a fail of logic but fail in a procedure cause by illogical acts, namely the absence of logic. The fact that X number of humans do not have a positive emotional approach to the idea of eugenics isn't a logical reason for it not to happen.




bioemerl  ·  865 days ago  ·  link  ·  

if you want to quote something on hubski, you have to use | around each quoted phrase, reddit's '>' doesn't work.

    From the term itself logic is impossible to fail in the search for truth and proper reasoning evaluation.

Then logic is practically impossible. As well, just operating under strict principles of validity does not make something valid. It is impossible for any set of principles to not let some lies or falsehoods slip past them.

    If some people have a (meaningless) cynical negative emotional reaction to it and therefore such an act becomes social unaccepted and therefore doesn't be let to happen.

See, the "i'm sorry about this" part was because I was indirectly bringing up Nazis.

It is well proven that eugenics is not a positive action for mankind. It reduces genetic diversity, and requires a top-down system where governments and bureaucrats get to determine how people want to act. It does not align with any free society, and the mindsets that allow people to justify eugenics also allowed people to justify the actions of the Nazis.

You state that people have a "meaningless" negative reaction to eugenics. You have to back that up with something, what indicates that the way people act to things emotionally is ever meaningless? Clearly, there is a reason people act the way they do, and that reason almost certainly has some meaning behind it.

    Then is not a fail of logic but fail in a procedure cause by illogical acts, namely the absence of logic.

The local failure was in the fact that those who wanted eugenics back in the day were not aware of the consequences such action would have on human society. What I am proposing is that emotions, through the course of evolution, have been primed to deal with situations like this. These instincts are there to inform us where we do not have "conscious" knowledge of the thing, and they have a lot of knowledge in them that we are not aware of.

When out modern logic conflicts with our primal emotions then there is something almost certainly off about our modern logic, and we need to wait for there to be more information so that we fully understand the situation.

    The fact that X number of humans do not have a positive emotional approach to the idea of eugenics isn't a logical reason for it not to happen.|

    Did I say this was true?