The "Straw Vulcan"

[Silent3]

This article is about a "TV trope", but I think it has a lot to say about how many people often treat issues of logic and rationality in real life, not just in fiction.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

The "Straw Vulcan" is a variant of the "straw man", specifically regarding arguments designed to make logical thinking look limited, heartless, short-sighted, and, of course, nowhere near as awesome as "going with your gut" or "following your heart". I'm posting about this in the R/T forum because I see similarities to assumptions that many religious people make about those who are skeptical nonbelievers.

It starts by having characters who think "logically" try to solve a problem. And they can't. Either they can't find any answer, or they're caught in some kind of standoff, or they're even stuck in a Logic Bomb-type loop. Once this is established, someone who uses good old human emotion comes up with a solution that the logical thinker can't. This proves An Aesop that emotion is superior and that the logical thinker shouldn't trust logic so much...

The most common mistake is to assume that logic and emotion are somehow naturally opposed and that employing one means you can't have the other.

In what I've heard religious (or "spiritual") people say to atheists and skeptics about why they believe, and in what they say they seem to think nonbelievers are lacking, it has very often sounded as if they think of real-life atheists and skeptics are much like Straw Vulcans -- lacking intuition and real emotions, boxed in by parody versions of logic and rationality from seeing things that their own embrace of emotion and irrationality allows them to see. The believers seem to create a self-image where they are heroes in their own minds for overcoming the limitations of the Straw Vulcan.

[Goblinmonger]

1. I think this is related to what some refer to as the "god-shaped hole"

that many think atheists have in our hearts. That because we don't believe we are somehow "less" and can't bring to the table of humanity that which believers do.

Nice post.

[darkstar3]

2. A point that everyone should note.

How many times have certain defenders of the faith here in R/T actually used the word "Vulcan"? I know I've read it a few times...

How many times have certain defenders of the faith used the straw man argument that, since you can't prove emotions, atheists/skeptics must believe they don't exist?

I am glad (horrors! an atheist showing emotion!) that you found this and that you posted it. I hope that it is read and carefully pondered by everyone here, and not just "the choir".

K&R.

[skepticscott]

3. Not to mention

The people here and elsewhere who seem to think that science and rational inquiry take no account of anything that cannot be perceived with the senses.

[Jim__]

4. This is largely a problem of language.

For instance, (1)The "Straw Vulcan" is a variant of the "straw man", specifically regarding arguments designed to make logical thinking look limited, heartless, short-sighted, and, of course, nowhere near as awesome as "going with your gut" or "following your heart".

And the article states: (2)Authors also routinely conflate "logical" with "reasonable" or "rational". To be logical, something has to meet very strict requirements.

In the strict sense, logical thinking is limited, heartless, and often short sighted. So, in statement (1), does logical thinking refer to logical thinking in the strict sense, or does it refer to it in the sense of reasonable or rational thinking as in statement (2)?
AlsoThen, In what I've heard religious (or "spiritual") people say to atheists and skeptics about why they believe, and in what they say they seem to think nonbelievers are lacking, it has very often sounded as if they think of real-life atheists and skeptics are much like Straw Vulcans -- lacking intuition and real emotions ...

This is not what I see in the R/T forum. Rather, I see skeptics demanding empirical evidence when someone discusses their personal experience. If someone is trying to use their personal experience to convince someone of something, a demand for empirical evidence is valid. But, I rarely, if ever, see religious people trying to proselytize in this forum.

[Silent3]

5. "In the strict sense, logical thinking is limited, heartless, and often short sighted."

In what strict sense is that?

Strict logic is limited compared to what else? It's self-limiting in that it has rules, but those rules are how it functions. If you have a point here, it seems to be a point that serves no useful purpose to bring up.

Logic is heartless? Perhaps in the same sense that a bicycle is heartless or the color purple is "dry" because it has no water in it. I think you know perfectly well that when people portray logic as heartless they are thinking specifically of emotional values being taken completely off the table, as if logic is incapable of or antithetical to dealing with emotions. Emotional goals, however, such as happiness, are quite often what one uses the tools of logic to seek. There is certainly no inherent conflict.

And how exactly is logic "short sighted"? Someone can badly apply logic to a broad set of good data, or properly apply logic to a faulty or limited set of data, or mess up in both ways getting short-sighted results, but that is not a property of logic.

If someone is trying to use their personal experience to convince someone of something, a demand for empirical evidence is valid. But, I rarely, if ever, see religious people trying to proselytize in this forum.

It hardly matters if the Straw Vulcan is invoked (or implied) when someone is proselytizing, when someone is trying to meet a demand for evidence, or when someone is proffering an excuse to be exempt from standards of evidence.

[Jim__]

6. In the sense intended in your linked article.

To be logical, something has to meet very strict requirements

The strict requirements of logic are that any conclusions you reach must be based on the axioms, previously proved conclusions, and the rule of inference used in your logical system.

Strict logic is limited compared to what else?

It is limited with respect to more open forms of reasonable or rational thinking - the linked article notes the distinction.

If you have a point here, it seems to be a point that serves no useful purpose to bring up.

My point is the same one made in your linked article. There is a difference between strictly logical thinking and reasonable or rational thinking. Your linked article states that it is a mistake to conflate the two.

I think you know perfectly well that when people portray logic as heartless they are thinking specifically of emotional values being taken completely off the table, as if logic is incapable of or antithetical to dealing with emotions. Emotional goals, however, such as happiness, are quite often what one uses the tools of logic to seek. There is certainly no inherent conflict.

Actually, when you are using strict logic, emotion is taken off the table. It doesn't matter if your goal is to reach some conclusion about emotions, the method is limited to the strict requirements of logic, and that methodology excludes emotion.

And how exactly is logic "short sighted"? Someone can badly apply logic to a broad set of good data, or properly apply logic to a faulty or limited set of data, or mess up in both ways getting short-sighted results, but that is not a property of logic.

The example, par excellence, of where logic can be short-sighted is in the sense of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem with respect to a Gödel sentence. Basically, intuition and insight can allow us to jump over long, difficult logical procedures to reach a correct conclusion.

It hardly matters if the Straw Vulcan is invoked (or implied) when someone is proselytizing, when someone is trying to meet a demand for evidence, or when someone is proffering an excuse to be exempt from standards of evidence.

I don't recall ever seeing any use of the Straw Vulcan in the R/T Forum. I have seen people state that it is unreasonable to ask for empirical evidence of subjective experience.

[Silent3]

9. I think you're taking the logic/rationality distinction the wrong way.

I'd also say it's fair to say that the "Straw Vulcan" applies to rationality, not just logic, when you look at the examples, not just the stricter definition at the start of the article.

The strict requirements of logic are that any conclusions you reach must be based on the axioms, previously proved conclusions, and the rule of inference used in your logical system.

Logic can also be probabilistic, generating appropriately calculated odds for various outcomes based on uncertain data (I suppose you can consider uncertain data a class of "axiom" if you really wanted to stretch a point). The probabilities applied can even be very rough guesses, one merely has to take that into account when staking decisions on such logic. In fact, as long as you understand "Garbage in, garbage out", you can apply logic to total nonsense. Logic will proceed merrily along producing internally consistent results so long as none of your nonsense premises are mutually contradictory.

It is limited with respect to more open forms of reasonable or rational thinking - the linked article notes the distinction.

Reasonable and rational thinking aren't identical to logic, but they both require logic, that's the important distinction.

The Straw Vulcan isn't shown to fail simply because he/she didn't augment logic with reason and rationality, the Straw Vulcan is shown to fail for not abandoning logic, or for focusing logic only on foolishly narrow perspective of premises and data to be analyzed via logic. When I ask what the supposed limitations of logic are, I'm asking how a person would supposedly be limited by insisting on logic.

As pointed out in the article, going with hunches, gut instinct, intuition, etc., does not constitute abandoning logic. If time is too short for detailed logical analysis, or the cost of detailed analysis is too high, while at the same time a particular person's intuition has proven fairly reliable in the past, there is not the slightest thing illogical about going with that intuition.

Actually, when you are using strict logic, emotion is taken off the table. It doesn't matter if your goal is to reach some conclusion about emotions, the method is limited to the strict requirements of logic, and that methodology excludes emotion.

Bullshit.

1) Eating chocolate makes Alice happy.
2) Alice is eating chocolate.
3) Alice is happy.

What kind of foolish parody of logic are you insisting upon here? Just because you don't somehow use emotions to step through the logic of the syllogism doesn't take emotion "off the table". You think that, unless you're guided from major premise and minor premise by a wave of love and hope to reach the conclusion, that would mean emotion is "off the table"? Puhleeease.

The example, par excellence, of where logic can be short-sighted is in the sense of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem with respect to a Gödel sentence. Basically, intuition and insight can allow us to jump over long, difficult logical procedures to reach a correct conclusion.

If you're calling that "short sighted", that's the most bizarre use of the term "short sighted" I've encountered. "Short sighted" means lacking foresight -- nothing to do with incompleteness. While applying formal logic does not necessarily mean you must have foresight, logic certainly doesn't limit you from using foresight either.

I'd love to see how love or intuition or gut instinct solve Incompleteness where formal logic cannot. :)

[Jim__]

16. You appear to be arguing with the article you linked to.

You claim: I'd also say it's fair to say that the "Straw Vulcan" applies to rationality, not just logic, when you look at the examples, not just the stricter definition at the start of the article.

As I said in post #4: This is largely a problem of language. ... In the strict sense, logical thinking is limited, heartless, and often short sighted.

The linked article clearly states that conflating "logical" with "reasonable" or "rational" is a mistake: Authors also routinely conflate "logical" with "reasonable" or "rational". To be logical, something has to meet very strict requirements. For a plan to be reasonable or sensible, it just has to get you in the direction you want to go by avoiding the stuff you don't want to happen.

Your claim is in direct disagreement with your linked article. But, as I originally stated, the problem is language.

---

Logic can also be probabilistic, generating appropriately calculated odds for various outcomes based on uncertain data (I suppose you can consider uncertain data a class of "axiom" if you really wanted to stretch a point). The probabilities applied can even be very rough guesses, one merely has to take that into account when staking decisions on such logic.

Probability is just an instance of a rule of inference. It lies within the strict requirements of logic as stated in post #6.

---

I said: Actually, when you are using strict logic, emotion is taken off the table. It doesn't matter if your goal is to reach some conclusion about emotions, the method is limited to the strict requirements of logic, and that methodology excludes emotion.

You claim:

Bullshit.

1) Eating chocolate makes Alice happy.
2) Alice is eating chocolate.
3) Alice is happy.

My statement says that if the goal is to reach some conclusion about emotions, the method is limited to the strict requirements of logic. Your sequence of statement holds to that. The method you use is strictly logical, drawing a conclusion from a set of previously stated premises. Just because some of the attributes are attributes of emotion does not mean that there was any emotion involved in the procedure. Your procedure uses simple logical implication.

---

I said: The example, par excellence, of where logic can be short-sighted is in the sense of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem with respect to a Gödel sentence. Basically, intuition and insight can allow us to jump over long, difficult logical procedures to reach a correct conclusion.

Then you reply: If you're calling that "short sighted", that's the most bizarre use of the term "short sighted" I've encountered. "Short sighted" means lacking foresight -- nothing to do with incompleteness. While applying formal logic does not necessarily mean you must have foresight, logic certainly doesn't limit you from using foresight either.

I stated: with respect to a Gödel sentence. The Gödel sentence is not specifically referring to incompleteness. It demonstrates the benefit of stepping outside of a logical system to quickly answer a question that cannot be answered from within the system.

[Silent3]

18. "conflating 'logical' with 'reasonable' or 'rational' is a mistake"

The point of mentioning that distinction, as I see it, is that people who create "Straw Vulcans" to attack logic also do so to attack reason and rationality while calling those things "logic". Consider an actual episode of Star Trek with the original Vulcan himself, The Galileo Seven. Spock is depicted as heartless, cold, and lacking in proper leadership because he "logically" (where this is obviously not an exercise in pure logic, but also rationality and reason) wants to fix a damaged shuttle and get everyone the hell out of a dangerous situation as situation as quickly as possible, whereas his warm and emotional (and if you ask me, f*cking stupid) human companions would rather waste time burying a dead body, risking more death because a burial is apparently so damned important.

The screen writers turn a perfectly defensible position of valuing protection of the living over performing rituals for the dead -- not at all an inherently heartless and cold position -- into a bad thing, by writing the story to come out badly for Spock until he yields to what is supposedly a very "human" solution: taking a desperate gamble. There is nothing, of course, inherently illogical about taking a desperate gamble when you're only options are bad and worse. Nevertheless, when Spock tries to defend the logic (which is really more rationality and reasonableness) of his chosen course of action, he's met with a "yeah, yeah, sure it was logical!" reaction. The important thing as far as the screen writers were concerned was to show how only a very "human" act (read emotional, going with your gut, taking an irrational chance) could save the day.

At any rate, regardless of whether you agree that the linked article says this or not, I don't really care. The article is for me a starting point for a discussion, not a Sacred and Inviolable Founding Document.

By spinning of into talk of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, you're certainly demonstrating a remarkable ability to be erudite while totally missing the point at the same time. The "Straw Vulcan" is all about emotion and gut instincts and taking wild chances being superior to logic (and rationality, and reason too, as I've pointed out by example). Unless you know of an incomplete formal system having been made complete by means of love, bravery, or giving the kid who strikes out every time a chance at bat when winning the championship hangs on the next swing, I can't see what relevant point you're making.

[GliderGuider]

22. Interesting. this episode proposes something similar to the USMC's combat policy

"Never leave a comrade behind, even a dead one."

F'ing stupid Marines, eh?

S'OK, there's probably a good logical/rational reason for getting a bunch of other people killed in such a situation. Like unit cohesion or something emotional like that.

[Silent3]

23. Dead soldiers get left on battlefields all of the time.

It's a question of the particulars of any given situation. "Unit cohesion" doesn't mean a whole lot if the whole unit dies.

And while I wouldn't call Marines "f'ing stupid", I don't totally agree with every last aspect of the value systems of some military people, including some Marines. Since military training requires training people to do many things that go against human nature, I don't see where training people to let go of excessive sentimentality regarding dead bodies as being such a bad idea. To go back to the Star Trek universe, as the Klingons would say (hardly an emotionally reserved bunch), "it's only a shell".

[westerebus]

49. Semper Fidelis.

Three things you should know about Marines:

1. We are not known to be rational.

2. We are not known to be reasonable.

3. Always Faithful extends to our fellow Marines, living or dead.

[Silent3]

50. So, how much risk to the living...

...to strategic interests, to national interests, to protection of civilians who might need some living Marines left over after a battle to protect them, would you accept in order to recover the dead body of a fellow Marine?

Perhaps you would risk more than I personally consider is reasonable for a corpse, but I kind of doubt that you don't have some limits of some sort. I sincerely hope that if it came down to, say, stopping someone setting off a nuke, and recovering a dead fellow Marine, and you couldn't do both, you'd stop the nuke -- and not even hesitate about which is more important.

[westerebus]

54. How close is the nuke to my x ?

I forgot to mention our morbid sense of humor.

As far as personalizing the what if, I have no comment.

[GliderGuider]

51. But the reason "Semper Fi" extends to the dead

has a lot more to do with the living. The dead are, after all, beyond caring. This means that it has everything to do with esprit de corps. I'd bet the reasoning goes something like this: "If we are prepared to do unreasonable things in service of a dead body, we will be better prepared to do unreasonable things in service of the living." "Unreasonable", in this case, doesn't mean unnecessary, but rather the willingness to take risks and push yourselves well beyond what we mere mortals would deem reasonable.

Is this close, in your opinion?

[Silent3]

52. Something that seems unreasonable in a small perspective...

...can be reasonable in a larger perspective. If, for instance, doing a few seemingly unreasonable things helps boost "esprit de corps", and makes a fighting unit more effective, that might mean, in the big picture, fewer people will die (or fewer people we care about will die, and more of the "enemy" will die).

I still think it would be better, as long as you're mucking about with normal civilian human behavior by training someone to kill efficiently and effectively with no hesitation, as long as you're willing to push a person so far from (thankfully) normal reluctance to kill, getting that person to be a bit less sentimental about dead bodies which are, as you put it, "beyond caring", makes a whole lot more sense that keeping that sentiment and having to play to that sentiment to maintain morale.

Which would you rather do? Inform one family that their loved one has died, and you weren't able to recover the body, or inform two families that each have lost a loved one, but at least both families get to show bodies at their respective funerals?

[westerebus]

53. Spot on.

It may appear unreasonable and to most irrational. It has a logic all its own.

[skepticscott]

10. Do you not grasp

that logical thinking isn't really possible, except in the most trivial sense, without imagination?

[GliderGuider]

7. It's more than a bit ironic

that you've created a straw man of your own to attack the straw man you perceive in others.

[darkstar3]

8. Without calling anyone out,

I challenge you to search the R/T board for the word "Vulcan", read a little of what you find, and then come back here and defend your accusation.

[GliderGuider]

13. The whole "reason vs religion" debate, especially on the internet

is nothing more than a duel between straw men.

In order to make it even vaguely interesting you guys need to go back to the archives of alt.atheism and take some lessons from Tony Lawrence and Stix.

[darkstar3]

20. Is it now? Prove it.

The characterization provided in the OP is not a straw man. We've seen it in action, even in this very thread. The Straw Vulcan is quite real. So where is the other duelist? Where is the, for lack of a better descriptive term, Straw Human? Surely you can point out its usage if the "whole" debate includes both straw men...

[GliderGuider]

24. Here are the positions as I see them:

Strawman1: "Atheism is a cold, heartless, anti-life philosophy." The attack on it goes something like: "Because there is love, atheism is invalid."

Strawman2: "Religious believers have skulls full of mush and wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit them on the ass." The attack on this one goes something like: "Because humanity only progresses through the use of logic, spirituality is invalid."

I see strong elements of this at play here in Silent3's own words:

In what I've heard religious (or "spiritual") people say to atheists and skeptics about why they believe, and in what they say they seem to think nonbelievers are lacking, it has very often sounded as if they think of real-life atheists and skeptics are much like Straw Vulcans -- lacking intuition and real emotions, boxed in by parody versions of logic and rationality from seeing things that their own embrace of emotion and irrationality allows them to see. (This is a statement of SM1.) The believers seem to create a self-image where they are heroes in their own minds for overcoming the limitations of the Straw Vulcan. (This is a statement of SM2.)

[darkstar3]

25. Your characterization

of Strawman2 and your supporting documentation of it do not match.

Silent3's OP shows the usage of Strawman1, and the statement that you take as proof of Strawman2 is merely the very reason that Strawman1 exists.

Now, if you have proof from any post on this board that someone here has made the statement you have applied as Strawman2, you can post it, or you can PM me. As it is, you have yet to show remotely that another, diametrically opposed, strawman exists.

[GliderGuider]

26. Why the charge?

We're just yakking on the net. These are my opinions. I'm not out to win some fight, and I have no need to "prove" anything to anyone. If you don't like my opinions, do what I do if I'm not interested: ignore them.

[darkstar3]

27. Because you made an accusation.

You accused Silent3, and others by proxy and generalization, of using a Strawman. I simply asked you to prove it, because it seems quite baseless to me.

[GliderGuider]

28. "Accusation" seems a bit harsh

Yes, I did say he was using a strawman to attack another strawman. I presented the reason why I felt that in the post above. Beyond that I have little to say. I have no problem if you think it was baseless.

[darkstar3]

30. Seriously?

You have no problem making baseless statements or accusations or whatever the hell you want to call them?

That seems very odd to me...

[GliderGuider]

31. No, you said it was baseless, and you called it an accusation.

I'm satisfied that my observation had a foundation, you're not. I don't need to convince you of anything, you are free to think whatever you wish.

[darkstar3]

33. Call it whatever you like,

but you haven't been able to provide substantiation or foundation or anything else, and you refuse to do so. That sounds like "baseless" to me.

But color me unsurprised at your self-satisfaction.

[ironbark]

39. I think what you are up against here

is the tendency to take a term, “baseless accusation”, that has (of necessity ;-) been recently and frequently repeated (to the one now hurling it) and for them to try it out on others to determine what it means and how it works.

In this specific instance (and more commonly and widely) there is a clear inability to distinguish mere ‘opinion’ and 'observation' from any kind of ‘accusation’ or ‘allegation.’

i.e.-
“Because you made an accusation…… of using a Strawman”

Stating “Your using a Strawman” is clearly an >observation<, it is an >opinion<, at most and worst it is a >challenge< of intellectual/argumentative nature…………..but there is >nothing< about the term or expression that makes it “an accusation”.

"Accusation" in this instance is not just “a bit harsh”………it is an absurd and completely inappropriate "accusation".


;-)

[GliderGuider]

40. Meh

It's just the internet.

[Odin2005]

11. That same trope is used to make fun of people on the Autism Spectrum.

I can't remember how many times I was compared with Mr. Spock for "being too logical" :eyes:

[ironbark]

12. Vulcan Cosmology?

“…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
#103 ‘What is Truth’

This is- all 'subjective' experience being deemed as having “ zero “truth value”.”

#88
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”

By this logic there can be no truth value placed upon any claimed emotion or internal state- 'Love' being 'subjective' is immediately in contradiction of any ‘truth’

The exchange is looking a lot like an episode from Star Treck and the Vulcans are struggling to see any ‘truth-value’ in wholly internal human emotional/ phenomena ;-)

Each and every such emotional “subjective truth” is “Non-falsifiable" and the very notion that there is/can be "subjective truth" is now deemed an "oxymoron".
……………………………………………………………..

To deny the logical conclusion would be to fail Vulcan adherence to reason.
To miss the humour would be to fail the human ability to see truth in comedy.

A very “subjective” experience ;-)

"The believers seem to create a self-image where they are heroes in their own minds for overcoming the limitations of the Straw Vulcan."

Not being a "believer" I don't get to be a "hero in my own mind"...But does that negate the potential of being ‘a legend in your own lunch box’?

;-)

[Goblinmonger]

14. Wow.

Just, wow.

[darkstar3]

19. Agreed.

I had to log out in order to see that, but it was worth it. That was hilarious. The fact that anyone would actually post the Straw Vulcan in this thread and then attempt to beat on it is incredible.

Sometimes I swear this board is like watching the "Shave and a haircut" bit from Roger Rabbit. Somebody comes along and knocks the "shave and a haircut" rhythm on a wall, and a silly cartoon rabbit blasts through it shouting "twoooooooo biiiiiiiiiits!"

[trotsky]

21. If it's the same "Ignored" I'm thinking of,

I can only imagine the tripe he spewed up this time. :)

[ironbark]

34. That would be accurate, verifiable and true.

“I can only imagine the tripe he spewed up this time”

In the past (as now) the “tripe” can only be “imagined” by you and projected onto me.
As with the two posts/posters above yours the only tool of argument you possess is to “imagine”-
falsify, fabricate, misrepresent what the other has said and project it at and on them.

When they object to and expose this repeated behaviour the solution is to set them to ‘Ignore’ and continue to talk about them (mock, ridicule, slander)…but never step out to address the issues or substantiate allegations.

The set pattern is to talk around and about the others argument, to dismiss it (even unseen and “imagined”) as “tripe”…..but always proves incapable of stepping up and tackling/refuting the argument.
Anytime >any< of the detractors above wish to step up and argue the issues or think they can explain how the rejection of ‘truth value’ for all subjective experience is not a parallel to Vulcan Cosmology....they are welcome to start with the 'evidence'-

“…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
#103 ‘What is Truth’

This is- all 'subjective' experience being deemed as having zero “truth value”.”

#88
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”

By this logic there can be no truth value placed upon any claimed emotion or internal state- 'Love' being 'subjective' is immediately in contradiction of any ‘truth’

The exchange is looking a lot like an episode from Star Treck and the Vulcans are struggling to see any ‘truth-value’ in wholly internal human emotional/ phenomena ;-)

Each and every such emotional “subjective truth” is “Non-falsifiable" and the very notion that there is/can be "subjective truth" is now deemed an "oxymoron".

[GliderGuider]

15. +1

[Jim__]

17. Excellent catch ironbark! - n/t

[Goblinmonger]

29. Good Catch?

Seriously? This little gem is the fallacy being talked about in the OP:

"To deny the logical conclusion would be to fail Vulcan adherence to reason.
To miss the humour would be to fail the human ability to see truth in comedy."

Way to applaud someone who thinks that logic and humanity are mutually exclusive.

Jesus, sometimes I really don't understand people.

[ironbark]

32. “Catches” the point/issue.

Have you (anyone else) noticed that your responses invariably involve three key features?

1/ Cut, ignore and omit the core issue/point/question and head directly for falsification, fabrication and/or left field absurdist disingenuous extrapolation.

2/ Attempt to tackle, insult, misrepresent the individual rather than investigate the issue.

3/ Fail to achieve all objectives.

This is what? 5th? 6th? time you have cut the core/point/evidence and gone for fabricating some crap about what your Mindmeld psychic insight reveals I “think”-

“…someone who thinks that logic and humanity are mutually exclusive.”

There is no point asking you to provide an example of me having said that or anything like that.
There is no point asking you to extrapolate, explain, justify how you came up with a ‘thought’ I have never had or expressed.

“Jesus, sometimes I really don't understand people.”

Well Dr Spock….People are complex creatures….and unless and until your assumed Mindmeld psychic capacity is demonstrated by ‘evidence’ and ‘proven’ by science………they just wont believe or buy it.

Funny about that ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

36. How pithy of you to use the "mindmeld" attack.

You said:

"To deny the logical conclusion would be to fail Vulcan adherence to reason.
To miss the humour would be to fail the human ability to see truth in comedy."

Seems a little mutually exclusive to me. Even if it isn't, it certainly cuts to the fallacy that the OP indicates.

And you're reply will be in your true form and be rambling and tell me that I took something out of context. There's also about a 60% chance you bring up the time from 4 years ago that you were "wrongly accused."

[ironbark]

38. How predictable of you to deploy Mindmeld insight and then-

"Cut, ignore and omit the core issue/point/question and head directly for falsification, fabrication and/or left field absurdist disingenuous extrapolation."

Hey look! You cut it….I put it back! Magic!

“…someone who thinks that logic and humanity are mutually exclusive.”

And you pulled that rabbit with two pancakes on its head from…….?

You can make it disappear again now….we have all seen it twice and know what it is. ;-)


“Seems a little mutually exclusive to me.”

Does it?
Well- “…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….” Seems >very< Vulcan to me….
So, unless you can explain how the above quote is >not< reflective of Vulcan cosmology it’s not a case of “cuts to the fallacy” but rather cuts through the fallacy of the fallacy ;-)

“…a 60% chance you bring up the time from 4 years ago that you were "wrongly accused."

And a 100% certainty that I will be obliged to remind you (6th time?)- not four years “ago” but ongoing >for four years< and >not once< have you or anyone else put up any evidence (other than your sacred “view”/opinion/impression) that I have attacked atheists, deemed them “evil” or expressed “hatred” towards them.

For anyone to be accused without evidence of having expressed “hatred” towards any group or deemed them as "evil" is indeed to be "wrongly accused."

It might have been hoped that logic, reason and critical thinking might have made that clear to you by now..............for appeals to common decency have long since failed.

[Silent3]

35. You do get that Star Trek's own original Vulcans are often Straw Vulcans...

...don't you?

I'm a fan, but some stuff in the far-from-mutually-consistent universe of TV shows, movies, and books is silly and/or annoying, especially when taken out of context from the suspension of disbelief often necessary to enjoy fiction. Over time, various Trek writers have tried to backtrack on the idea of Vulcans being without emotion, changing the mythos to say that Vulcans do not lack emotion, but that they work hard to keep emotions under control, and, as a race, are especially prone to going out of control with their passions if they don't exercise such control.

This doesn't stop the Straw Vulcan from routinely being resurrected anyway (not just in Vulcan characters, but in characters like Data too), but it shows that I think some writers are smart enough to realize that emotion and logic are really not mutually exclusive.

As for whether or not you're a "hero in your own mind", well, if you don't construct Straw Vulcans in order to bravely not down, if you don't treat atheists or anyone else as if they are like Straw Vulcans, and if you don't promote the idea that being "in touch with your emotions" somehow makes you superior to people who employ logic and rational thinking (as if routinely and consistently employing logic and rationality by definition cuts you off from some special form of knowledge or insight) then the comment isn't about you, so no worries, right?

[ironbark]

37. As opposed to real and representative Vulcans? ;-)

I read your post (twice over) and I’m still trying to work out the connection between what was said (#12) and your response.

#12-
“…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
#103 ‘What is Truth’

This is- all 'subjective' experience being deemed as having “ zero “truth value”.”

#88
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”

By this logic there can be no truth value placed upon any claimed emotion or internal state- 'Love' being 'subjective' is immediately in contradiction of any ‘truth’

The exchange is looking a lot like an episode from Star Treck and the Vulcans are struggling to see any ‘truth-value’ in wholly internal human emotional/ phenomena ;-)

Each and every such emotional “subjective truth” is “Non-falsifiable" and the very notion that there is/can be "subjective truth" is now deemed an "oxymoron".
…………………………………………………….

There are two possible objections to describing the above quotes as ‘Vulcan cosmology’-

1/ The clear rejection of all subjective experience as having zero truth value (and ‘subjective truth’ being designated an ‘oxymoron’) is not reflective of, reminiscent of or akin to Vulcan adherence to the purely objective.
Or put simply- “where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth" >does not< (?) sound >very< Vulcan.

Or
2/ The connection and parallel is clear and obvious……….but there is an objection to others making this clear and obvious connection and pointing it out.

?

[Silent3]

41. As opposed to taking quotes from some Trek reference...

...and using them as if they could prove or disprove some point I'm making about the idea of a "Straw Vulcan".

The only thing relevant to my OP would be if you think Vulcan philosophy, as described in fiction, matches any real humans you know of.

[ironbark]

42. The “match” has been provided (and cut/ignored) three times.

“The only thing relevant to my OP would be if you think Vulcan philosophy, as described in fiction, matches any real humans you know of.”

Here is the “match” (from "real humans") to ‘Vulcan philosophy’ yet again-

#12-
“…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
#103 ‘What is Truth’

This is- all 'subjective' experience being deemed as having zero "truth value”.”

#88
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”



There are two possible objections to describing the above quotes as ‘Vulcan cosmology/philosophy’-

1/ The clear rejection of all subjective experience as having zero truth value (and ‘subjective truth’ being designated an ‘oxymoron’) is not reflective of, reminiscent of or akin to Vulcan adherence to the purely objective.
Or put simply- “where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth" >does not< (?) sound >very< Vulcan.
(If so explain how/why >not<)

Or
2/ The connection and parallel is clear and obvious……….but there is an objection to others making this clear and obvious connection and pointing it out.

[Flipper999]

43. "Truth value"?

The term true can only be applied to something that can be objectively verified. "John is over six feet tall." "Mary is wearing a dress." Etc.

Subjective experience is neither true or false. It is a viewpoint. That is all. It doesn't make sense to try to apply "truth value" to it.

For example, Bob may have a gut feeling that Zeus is the only god that actually exists. However, he has no factual evidence of Zeus' existence. Thus, his gut feeling is a subjective viewpoint concerning Zeus.

As far as your "Vulcan cosmology" is concerned, I don't know where you got that term. I suppose that someone could create a fictional cosmology/philosophy for for these fictional aliens that includes the three statements that you keep cutting and pasting. However, I find it odd that a supposedly logical race would use a term like "truth value" and try to use it to discount subjective experience.

Regardless, atheists/agnostics/skeptics are not fictional aliens. Nor do they necessarily feel they are missing anything in their lives by disbelieving in the myriad gods, ghosts, and demons that religious individuals hold so dear. They would probably be willing to change their stance should any verifiable physical evidence of these entities be presented. This cannot be achieved by engaging in arguments about the merits of Mr. Spock's nonexistent philosophy.

[ironbark]

46. 'True' and 'truth value' have much broader reasonable aplication

“The term true can only be applied to something that can be objectively verified.”

Perhaps on Vulcan. But here on Earth we have ‘true’ and ‘truth’ applied fairly and reasonably to all manner of subjective experience, emotions and insights that are not or cannot be “objectively verified.”

From truly happy, to true love, to the truth of pain to young Cleetus claiming-
“It was an accident Mom…I didn’t mean it” and knowing (without video surveillance or “objective verification”) that he is telling the “truth” (or not;-).

That, like it or not, is how we live, operate and communicate…each day making thousands of assessments of >possibility< and >probability< on highly subjective matters with little or no “objective verification” (perhaps no more than tone of voice or look in eye) and coming to a determination of “truth”.

I strongly suspect most are confusing that which is or can be >proven< with that which we deem to be ‘true’.

“I suppose that someone could create a fictional cosmology/philosophy for for these fictional aliens…”

You “suppose someone could”?....Truth is they already have. It’s called Star Trek and the fictional aliens are called Vulcans and their cosmology is reasonably portrayed and reflected in the quotes provided- “…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
That’s pretty dam reflective of Vulcan by any standard or measure. So is-
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”

“They would probably be willing to change their stance should any verifiable physical evidence of these entities be presented. This cannot be achieved by engaging in arguments about the merits of Mr. Spock's nonexistent philosophy”.

In reverse order. The fact that the character is fictional does not render the ‘philosophy’ “nonexistent” or non reflective of that of real people.
The philosophy/cosmology exists and has been clearly articulated and is widely known and understood.
Changing atheists stance in relation to “gods, ghosts, and demons” is not an issue here nor is it my interest or objective.

[Silent3]

44. Perhaps I'm just not understanding your method of citation

If the #12 and #103 and #88 are supposed to be post numbers, post numbers in what threads? As of this moment, there is no post in this current thread as high as #88. Are these numbers supposed to be episode numbers (they don't make much sense that way either)? Numerical indices into some compendium (to which I see no link or other citation) of Vulcan philosophy?

Are any of this direct quotes of some real human being's actually philosophy? Or an author/screenwriter's imagined Vulcan philosophy that he or she might not actually espouse?

[ironbark]

45. Not understanding "citation method" that gives post and thread?

“…where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….”
#103 ‘What is Truth’

The post and thread are “#103 ‘What is Truth’ …” #88 is from same thread.

#88
“"One of those words {subjective truth} completely contradicts the other."”

Post and thread "#103 ‘What is Truth’ was given in #12 and cited again in #37.)

They are indeed “direct quotes of some real human being's actually philosophy “
Clearly articulating “no facts- no truth” rejection of anything subjective being held to be true.
That is- every subjective experience from joy, to love, to pain, to sorrow has no truth value and “truly sorry” must be deemed a “oxymoron”.

There are two possible objections to describing the above quotes as ‘Vulcan cosmology/philosophy’-

1/ The clear rejection of all subjective experience as having zero truth value (and ‘subjective truth’ being designated an ‘oxymoron’) is not reflective of, reminiscent of or akin to Vulcan adherence to the purely objective.
Or put simply- “where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth" >does not< (?) sound >very< Vulcan.
(If so explain how/why >not<)

Or
2/ The connection and parallel is clear and obvious……….but there is an objection to others making this clear and obvious connection and pointing it out.

[Silent3]

47. Why didn't you use links to the thread?

I really had no idea that was supposed to be a thread title from this forum. "What is truth?" doesn't show up unless I look back a page from the current posts, and it's a pretty damn generic sounding a title.

At any rate, this sounds more like a philosophical discussion of vocabulary, which has very little to do with what people are or are not capable of in life (apart from whether they use words like "truth" to your liking or not) because they do or do not or selectively do or do not employ logic and reasoning instead of emotion and intuition and instinct.

[ironbark]

48. Because a clear ‘cite’ is enough to identify origin…

And because nine times out of ten I can’t even get a substantiating cite or link around here even when I ask for it…seems to be local custom to refuse cite.
None the less…mine was there and clear from the outset.
You missed/misread it.

“At any rate, this sounds more like a philosophical discussion of vocabulary…”

LOL!
I’ll take that as 1/

1/ The clear rejection of all subjective experience as having zero truth value (and ‘subjective truth’ being designated an ‘oxymoron’) is not reflective of, reminiscent of or akin to Vulcan adherence to the purely objective.
Or put simply- “where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth" >does not< (?) sound >very< Vulcan.

;-)
It’s not “real people” expressing a real pov parallel, reflective of, reminiscent of and akin to ‘Vulcan’….it’s a “philosophical discussion of vocabulary”.

Lets just ignore and omit that the “vocabulary” clearly states “where there are no (unambiguous, objective) facts, there is no "truth"….and pretend that aint Volcan vocab.

Whatever the next evasive squib is…..I have lost interest…..too much messing about for too little honest return.