Logic, anyone?

[comixnut]

I am always surprised about how CA members despite their best efforts to remain civil, are let down by their logic faculties - myself included. Having an argument and sticking to it, when it has obvious holes in it, is not helped by people who can spot the hole a mile away and yet are unable to make sensible argument as to why that is, and that fact usually forces the thread to basically go down hill, if you know what i mean! :D

This is, i think, especially important to artists because i honestly believe that it is all subjective, so a good grasp of logic would help settle things quite quickly. Plus whenever you are having trouble getting through to someone, we could point them to this thread.

Becaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse, what i was hoping is that some kind soul who has actually studied logic and has a good grasp of it (even if they are not a master at it, it would give us all a starting point, and we could all learn together from there on) would basically step up and teach us.

We could use examples from the CA forums right here and start learning about how to see things in a new way.

Does this sound like a helpful thing to anyone else?

[Zaxser]

It's really not hard to grasp the basics. You should probably start with basic logical fallacies, the anatomy of arguments, and maybe reading an introduction to the history of philosophy. It's all a Google search away.

[l33t fl33t]

Don't they teach Philosophy in art school?

Fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

If anyone wants, I can throw out a couple of home made examples...

[comixnut]

l33t fl33t thanks, but holy shit that's a lot. :D :D I will try to get through some of that but it's gonna take time. And not at my school they don't, it's about commercial art so i guess they don't deem that important.

Zaxser cheers mate, i am also aware that if i wanted to learn art i could do it by myself no pros (supposedly). So let's use your response as our first example shall we?

I asked if anyone was willing to go through logic, in a communal thread for the benefit of everyone, including myself, in the hope that it would be more fun, enjoyable a good exercise for all and another opportunity to make some more acquaintances and possibly friends. You tell me, 'go and learn it yourself', am i correct? So what happened there?

Was my message not clear enough? Is it logical to assume that when someone asks to learn it from someone else here in the forums that they are just lazy and cannot be bothered to use google? or am i correct in believing that that assumption misses quite a few steps in between?

:) could not have asked for a better start to this if i tried really! :D

[jadefoodog]

a bunch of megalomaniacs trying to prove they are more awesome than each other doesnt really have a foundation in logic , its like your trying to fight fire with a radio broadcast.

[comixnut]

ok, honestly that one i did not get jadefoodog, sorry. i would humbly request that you had another crack at it ( i am being serious) since i honestly want to get what you are saying.

[Nalot]

Ok, Im not a very logical person, but Im willing to give it a try.

When a person asks for help from a forum I believe it is because, a- they have tried to look elsewhere and have got an amount of information but the whole answer to a long and drawn ut question, and b- that each individual has a unique insight to the problem, or query, at hand that may give results not found in the search.

I believe it is people who tell you to look for yourself that are a little lazy, at least in this instance you were given a few things to look for, mostly they cannot be bothered to answer the question and so send you away. This happens a lot, and unfortuantely with people who generally do have the answers.

I hope this has been beneficial

[l33t fl33t]

a bunch of megalomaniacs trying to prove they are more awesome than each other doesnt really have a foundation in logic , its like your trying to fight fire with a radio broadcast.

Socrates put it best - people that refuse to accept the conclusions of valid arguments are either irrational or ignorant. That being said, logic does rely on some basic level of mutual cooperation - if I point at a tree and call it as such, and you say it's a car, it's very doubtful we can have a logical discussion.

@comixnut
I don't think what Zaxser said was a logical fallacy per se. Rather, it makes sense in the following way:

1. To learn logic, you need to...
2. You can find all that on Google.
3. Thus, searching Google is what you should do.

However!

The reply itself was absolutely correct but also absolutely useless. Read this joke and see what I mean:
http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~omri/Humor/MSJoke1.html

Now, I got those kind of replies all the time when I first asked question here. I think the answer to just about any question I posed included at least one "just practice" answer which was, while absolutely correct, also absolutely useless.

[Grief]

631964

[the_jos]

Let's assume the following:
1. Only girls have long hair
2. Bob has long hair
This leads to the conclusion that Bob must be a girl.

This is how logic works. I assume something to be true (only girls have long hair) and something else to be true (Bob has long hair) which leads to a derived conclusion (Bob is a girl).

Where many arguments go wrong is that people will take the derived conclusion and start pounding on it, not knowing which assumptions someone made to get to that conclusion. And they don't expose all their assumptions either.

So now we have someone else with the following assumptions:
A. Only boys are named Bob
B. Bob is named Bob
Conclusion: Bob is a boy.

Now two people will go argue on this.

A: Bob is a girl!
B: Bob is a boy!

A: Bob is a girl, Bob has long hair
B: Bob is a boy, he's named Bob

This is where things get sticky.
A needs to ask or understand that B assumes that only boys are named Bob.
And B needs to ask or understand that A assumes that all people with long hair are girls. This is where many arguments fail. Many people are too busy with their own argument and won't look at the assumptions of others.
Others don't ask for the assumptions of others but draw their own conclusions.
Or the situation is just too complex to capture in simple statements.

Let's introduce person C. He sees that A and B are not getting to the point and says:
1. I know a girl named Bob
2. There is a boy with long hair

At this time the argument between A and B can't be solved anymore because we don't have enough information.

Then there is one more source of problems.
It's called belief or what logic would call axioms. Things that can't be proven but are self-evident or should be decided upon.
Before starting an argument those axioms should be named and decided.
For example, when I have a debate on buddhism I will assume there is are numerous lifes before and after this one, regardless of my own beliefs on that subject. If I would not do this I could twist and turn the debate in various directions by just changing the way I think about (re)incarnation.

To get back to the 'Bob' problem.
If A and B had decided that only girls have long hair (thus making that an axiom) there would not have been an argument.
Even when C told them that there are boys who have long hair this axiom could be valid when A and B will agree that those long-haired boys are exceptional and could be regarded non-existent for the sake of the argument.

I think this covers the basics of logic used in most arguments.
Remember, when arguing not everything will be about logic.
A part of it is about emotions. You may find that a friend of mine is a bitch and have very valid arguments for that, but I may think that was an incident and that she's a nice person. And that you are making a lot of noice about nothing but your hurt ego. These kinds of discussions will end in a flamewar for sure.

[squidmonk3j]

give it up, comixnut:)

no formal laws apply in conspiracyspace, and thus no formal analysis of propositional structures can be made.

i suggest you just go with the flow and blurt out spectacular non-sequiturs in a tourette's syndrome-like manner.

ARISTOTLE WAS A ROTHSCHILD!

[sketchfreak]

They are Male or Female?

False! ... They are Transgenders! :harbl:

[Zaxser]

You really shouldn't examine my post as if it were a logical arguement. The English language is full of ambiguity and it's very possible that understanding a person's underlying premise may rely on the context of the situation. Logban is actually a language invented to get around the built in ambiguity of human languages.

My underlying premise is my understanding of argument from authority. To put it simply, I don't have any. Neither does anyone in this thread. If Kev shows up, one of the most knowledgeable forumites will have been drawn into the fray, but even then, he's not an expert.

The internet is full of anonymous people who want to one up each other. Even if you found a relatively nice group of people, as I'm sure you would on this thread, they have to back up their knowledge with links, because any authority they might have can't be demonstrated very well over the internet.

How do you even know logban exists? I could have just made it up right now. Maybe I didn't, but maybe I didn't spell it correctly. Same thing for logical fallacies. How do you know that I've used the word premise correctly? What is the simplest way you could you do this all?

...

I'll give you a second.

...

That's right. Do a simple Google search.

There's another underlying assumption on my part as well. I'd rather be drawing. I think most other people would as well, instead of just typing information which can be found in a hundred places on the internet. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Opilione]

Logically, this thread needs more Spock macros.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2172/logicalawesome.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=logicalawesome.jpg)
Don't make me post the slashy ones.

[Black Spot]

Let's assume the following:
1. Only girls have long hair
2. Bob has long hair
This leads to the conclusion that Bob must be a girl.

SNIP

So now we have someone else with the following assumptions:
A. Only boys are named Bob
B. Bob is named Bob
Conclusion: Bob is a boy.

Now two people will go argue on this.

A: Bob is a girl!
B: Bob is a boy!

A: Bob is a girl, Bob has long hair
B: Bob is a boy, he's named Bob



It's all about context. Both are correct in Blackadder.

[the_jos]

It's all about context. Both are correct in Blackadder.

Most discussions on the internet ain't Blackadder episodes.
Though some evolve into something close :)

It's my opinion that in very few arguments the truth is on one of the extremes. Most of the time it's somewhere in between.
However, it's much more fun and educating to take the extreme point and argue from that point as much as possible. Only abandon it when it's impossible to hold. Try to convince people you are right. And the moment they agree with you point out the flaws.

It's all about context indeed....

[squidmonk3j]

logic has absolutely nothing to do with "truth". logic can teach you to seek out the structural validity/integrity of certain propositions and arguments, but it is otherwise useless.

an example: the scientifical method is based on possibly the weakest form of purely logical reasoning...the above examples (re bob's gender) of deduction are -both- more logically sound than the law of gravity.

[Elwell]

It's all about context. Both are correct in Blackadder.

You can all go home. Nothing is going to top this.

[Elwell]

However, it's much more fun and educating to take the extreme point and argue from that point as much as possible. Only abandon it when it's impossible to hold. Try to convince people you are right. And the moment they agree with you point out the flaws.

This is the textbook definition of trollish behavior, and will get you banned.

[kev ferrara]

logic has absolutely nothing to do with "truth". logic can teach you to seek out the structural validity/integrity of certain propositions and arguments, but it is otherwise useless.

an example: the scientifical method is based on possibly the weakest form of purely logical reasoning...the above examples (re bob's gender) of deduction are -both- more logically sound than the law of gravity.

Yes the scientifical method is wretched.

However the scientific method, which is a different thing entirely, has led to the creation of your computer, cell phone, car, television, heating system, Ipod, satellites, farm machinery, oil refineries, coffee machines, and textile industries.

What the hell is this thread about anyway? Was there some bad discussion somewhere on ca that kicked it off? Because I'd like to read that instead of this.

kev

[the_jos]

This is the textbook definition of trollish behavior, and will get you banned.

Depends.
I don't argue for the sake of arguing, stick to the topic and don't use flamebait.
The most usefull things I've learned on internet forums (yes, it's possible to learn from others, even on forums) was in discussions on extremes.
The moment I sense my opponent(s) ain't up to it I quit.
Discussions are to learn from, not to fool around with people.

If that's trolling I think you and me have a different definition of it.

[squidmonk3j]

Yes the scientifical method is wretched.

However the scientific method, which is a different thing entirely, has led to the creation of your computer, cell phone, car, television, heating system, Ipod, satellites, farm machinery, oil refineries, coffee machines, and textile industries.

What the hell is this thread about anyway? Was there some bad discussion somewhere on ca that kicked it off? Because I'd like to read that instead of this.

kev

i sincerely apologize for the grammatical error. especially since it apparently made you misread my entire statement.

[LORD M]

When we're talking about logic, one really have to think through what one is arguing for.

This is a great (but silly billy) example on how ones logic can fail because you don't think it through. This can be inserted in many more things then pinguins and humans.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5165/logic.jpg

If this is logical to you, then I don't know what to say to you.

[l33t fl33t]

Wrong. Conclusion - both parties don't understand English.

[Bill]

Well if you're not smart enough to speak English I think it goes without saying that you're probably not smart enough to know colors either.

[sketchfreak]

This thread is pointless...Anyone needs pot?

I Slowly understand "Words of Wisdom" from Jason Manley and dear Elwell...

[Elwell]

This thread:
632235

[Jason Rainville]

This thread:
632235

ad hominem. (am I logical yet?)

[LORD M]

I reject your logic and substitute my own.

[squidmonk3j]

elwell:

another, more likely possibility, is that spending time submitting deliberate and substantial information to threads in the Lounge is an utter waste of time.

[Black Spot]

Most discussions on the internet ain't Blackadder episodes.


Well it should be. All of life is there if you look closely enough albeit in an amusing fashion which is fine by me.

[Keeviin]

As was already stated, logic merely shows structural relations between sentences - in its own terms. It is a purely normative science, or a "ideal language": you may compare "normal language" arguments to logic, but there is nothing more to it.

This is the textbook definition of trollish behavior, and will get you banned.

In Socrates case, this would be a real-life ban.

[Grief]

gentlemen...

632445

[Frublz]

Well, I suppose seeing this thread I am Mr. Authority on logic here (I studied maths and you seem to all have no idea what it is), so let me explain a few things which I so love to do and correct you all.

A 'logic' is quite simply a formal system of deduction which meets these very simple properties:

1: If it assumes n statements as true, it is able to prove at least n+1 statements true (it has interference)
2: For the same set of n statements assumed as true, it is always able to proof the same set of m (m> n, thus) true (it is objective)

And that's it. However most logics will be extremely useless in everyday life, a special type of logics are naturalistic logics, which seek to mimic the 'logic' of nature, it works just like in nature. If all a are b and all b are c then all a are c... these types of logic are often used because we see this happening in nature. Do we have a logical proof that it happens in nature that way? No, we don't, we have simply always observed it as so so we assume it is so. We have induced it, not deduced it. Assumptions are called axioms more often than assumptions in logic, because the Greeks had more logicians than the Romans.

Most logics are based on the hilbert-style interference, the axiom that: {a -> b, a } |- b simply read as 'If we know that a implies b, and we know that a is true, than we may conclude (prove) that b is true.', most people assume this as absolute, but that's a lie and there's enough theoretical logic which avoids it.

That apart, in naturalistic logic, any logical step which is completely infallible is logically correct. Quite simply if there exists one theoretical case where the in nature there can exist in some way an example for which the logical step doesn't hold, it's a logical fallacy. Which indeed implies that about every science safe for mathematics and theoretical physics makes logical fallacies by the numbers to draw conclusions every day. The 'scientific method' allows for logical fallacies to be made. The use of logic in science is nothing else than convincing. Let's say I claim 'At any point, any particle on Earth accelerates towards the sun', most people will not know if this is true. I can convince them by using the Hilbert style deduction. I will start with some-thing that is so obvious for them to get that they will accept it as true (my axioms) I will then break the path from the axioms down in little a -> b type implications that they can all accept as true, given that of course if a -> b, and b -> c then a -> c and so on. If they accept all those implications as true up until that final conclusion and the axioms. They have no choice for themselves to accept that the conclusion is indeed true. The last part is what most people botch up, accepting the implications, especially when they don't want certain things to be true. Good example:

Person A: 'Incest is bad because it produces genetically inferior offspring.'
Person B: 'Do you also think that dumb people should be banned from having sex, people born with astma, UGLY people?'
Person A: 'Hell no, that's scary!'

Person A has quite clearly stated that 'produces genetically inferior offspring -> bad' but person A refuses to accept the implication of that axiom that letting dumb or even not so bright people having sex is also bad. Person B has thus successfully made a reductio ad absurdum. Person B has shown that things person A says lead invariably to a contradiction of another thing that person A says, showing that one of those things is nonsense at the least. This is a by-product of 'ad hoc logic', people making up arguments on the spot to suit there opinions rather than basing their opinions on sound arguments. Almost all arguments in political debates are ad-hoc arguments and there you see the most logical fallacies of all. Because in politics, people believe things because they want them to be true, not because sound arguments show them to be true. Both sides on political debates on TV make so much logical fallacies every five minutes it serves as little more then comedy for mathematicians actually, most people don't realize this. Also that the 'scientific method' allows for a great deal of logical fallacies. And that's why science corrects itself often. Mathematics doesn't really correct itself, once proven, always proven.

[r.mccabe]

As I'm taking a break from symbolic logic 220 review, I thought I would post. All I'm gonna say is looky (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/007353563x/634897/ber43145_ch10_266-309.pdf)If you feel like doing this for casual conversation your not very logical. If you are in fact, not very logical grab "the logic book (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007353563x/student_view0/)" by Bergmann, and you'll be ready to go. Otherwise continue laughing.

Edit: and Frublz I challenge you to translate your post to logic (see above).

[Frublz]

There's no such thing as 'logic' as a language, there are various languages constructed to express logic 'better' than most natural languages. First Order Language, Z, Praedicate Language, Labda Calculus.

The major flaw of this idea is that logic may only be expressed in unambiguous language is that no language is unambiguous for the transfer of information. Language can be unambiguous in how it's written down by the author. But as soon as another reads it, that person still has effectively a nice set of lines and twirls in front of self and must interpret them, and I challenge you, or any other logician for that matter to come up with a objective algorithm which can determine whose interpretation of the symbols is correct that doesn't come down to 'You are wrong because I am right.', in that it's the same as English.

Whatever you aim to express to another, you run through the communication barrier and in the end also through the analogue barrier. Logic is best seen as a tool to force another (reasonable) scientist to be convinced, and also to convince oneself of the logical truth. Some-thing is not true from the moment it is proven. Some-thing is true if a proof exists, and on the moment we find that prove we have confirmed for ourselves that it is true. The simple catch is how far are you willing to deviate from the perfect unambiguous logic which does not exists (proofs must still be human-verified), is reading a proof in English that is accurate enough enough for yourself to convince yourself that indeed the theoretical real logical proof does exist.

A statement is not a theorem in relation to a set of axioms if it's proven at a certain point, a statement is a theorem if it's provable, and this is unrelated to humans. But humans are curious and like to find out what statements are provable, and for that, all you really have to do is convince yourself, not others.

[r.mccabe]

My prof has addressed ambiguity on a few occasions. Logic is not about what you mean, its about showing that an argument will hold or not. So no logic is not to force others to agree, its to show that what you say is valid. The rest of what you wrote is full of assumptions, if not all of it. Your comment that logic boils down to im right your wrong is very misinformed. However, your comments make it clear that you like things fuzzy enough to void rationality, so i assume misinformation has little bearing on what you have to say.

Edit: Rationality is a choice, many people choose to ignore it.

Good arguments are true on any interpretation.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Well I think where a lot of discussions go bad is when people fail to realize the difference between fact and opinion. I'll give an example

guy #1: I love <insert band here>
guy #2: What? that band blows and so does anyone that likes them
guy #1: screw you man <insert reason for liking band>
guy #2: your a retard (notice the incorrect form of "you're") <insert reason for disliking the band>

How does this relate to logic? Simple. Both people will continue arguing about whether or not aforementioned band does in fact suck, they will both give arguments as to why it does or does not suck. Guy # 1 may say something along the lines of complimenting the bands lyrics or style while guy # 2 may point out how all their songs sound the same or how "<insert band member here> is a douchebag". Both will argue on, adding points that they deem logical reasons for liking or disliking the band.

But who's right? Neither of them. Matters such as this are merely matters of opinions and as such neither of them can really be right or wrong and no amount of arguing is going to make guy # 1 dislike the band or guy # 2 like the band, but they will still continue to take up at least 3 pages with mindless insults and idle threats. It's a scientific fact that they are both retarded. While this doesn't apply to every argument or discussion, I think you'll find that it's applicable in many of the threads started by people that make Darwin spin in his grave

[Frublz]

My prof has addressed ambiguity on a few occasions. Logic is not about what you mean, its about showing that an argument will hold or not. So no logic is not to force others to agree, its to show that what you say is valid.Great, and how do you force others to agree? By showing what you say is valid maybe I'd say. By the way, I never said logic was for that, I said languages to write down logic precisely are for that. In logic some-thing is valid or not, there exists a proof for a statement or there exists no proof for a statement. Logical languages however can write down such a proof precisely for humans (or if very precisely even machines, but then one must have faith into the machine of course...) to verify that the string in the alphabet of the logical languages actually is a proof. There's a difference between a type of logic and a language constructed to write down statements in such a logic. In the logic itself, a statement is a theorem or not, it's provable or not, simple. However to even make clear to humans what the logic is that is spoken about it has to be written down, and this can be done (praeferably) in a precise machine-verifiable language.

In logic, a statement is a theorem or not, we can investigate of statements if they are theorems and if we have done so. We can tell others that they are indeed are and of course they want to see some proof of that so we give them a proof of it.

The rest of what you wrote is full of assumptions, if not all of it. Your comment that logic boils down to im right your wrong is very misinformed.Never said that... I said the interpretation of logical (and any) language comes down to it. I can just say that FORALL x (panda(x) ) means 'Butterflies are pandas', of course you're going to tell me the statement says 'Everything's a panda'. And then I'm wrong of course, but why? Because other people have read my interpretation and say it's clearly wrong, but how are you going to verify that all of those people didn't misread some-thing and I was right and the statement did mean that butterflies are pandas? That's more what I talk about. And that's the invariable barrier of the human factor in all things you have go through in the end, some one has to be the arbiter and decide whose interpretation is correct end whose is wrong.

However, your comments make it clear that you like things fuzzy enough to void rationality, so i assume misinformation has little bearing on what you have to say.No, I'm a error theorist on this part. I recognise 'logic' as a chiefly theoretical abstraction which can be used to our aide but in the end comes down to that some-one must interpret the logic.
Good arguments are true on any interpretation.Nope, good arguments are simply true. Interpretations of good arguments can be wrong is my point. And to rule an interpretation wrong, the only way is have another interpretation which is then assumed as 'right'.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I was the guy in all the lectures who noted the lack of rigour of a lot of lecturers but I still recognise the logic is a theoretical abstraction. In the end to communicate about logic it must still go through human senses and finally human interpretation and humans make mistakes. I'm basically saying that errors can be made in proof-reading, and the only way to point such an error out is to relate it to a 'right' reading of the proof. And you still have to assume the latter as right then starting the cycle all over again.

[Sady]

There would be much less silly talk if people didn't have so many opinions.

[Mock]

...

Shut up and draw.

[squidmonk3j]

well, comixnut...

in a forum primarily dedicated to sexy bitches and awesome mechas,

what else could you possibly expect?

:)

[XanaChama]

http://failblog.wordpress.com/files/2009/03/fail-owned-meat-origin-fail.jpg

Logic for the win

[Ilaekae]

I wear slippers, therefore roller coasters are not sexually safe.

[TASmith]

Ilaekae, where exactly are you wearing your slippers? You know they're supposed to go on your feet, right?

[r.mccabe]

Frublz: point taken.

[PieterV]

Hmmm this thread reminds me of the cartoon that's in my philosophy coursebook under postmodernism.

http://www.sidewalkbubblegum.com/images/150.gif

[squidmonk3j]

if that cartoon were the one and only entry on postmodernism in ur book, i'd have to buy it.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Also, just my 2 cents but if I'm in an argument with someone and I believe my argument is logical and theirs isn't and they seem dead set on not agreeing with me then I'll just end the argument and let them believe what they want. If I really am right then odds are that time will prove it to them

[alesoun]

:( I'm not very logical.

And you know what?





I don't much care ;)

[Frublz]

Hmmm this thread reminds me of the cartoon that's in my philosophy coursebook under postmodernism.

http://www.sidewalkbubblegum.com/images/150.gifFine and all but if some-one really knew post-modernism they would argue that the guy with the suit is actually right here. Our intuition says no but there is no way to tell which versions of truth is 'true', so in effect they become two different repraesentations of the same object.

That's more the idea, that it's not relevant how you word it, the situation is the same.

[TASmith]

the guy in the suit is right in theory, but not in practice. He's just using theory to justify poor behavior.

Now, as for people having different viewpoints, I think this was best addressed in Rashomon, no?

[Straight Edge Ryan]

I don't buy the "guy in a suit theory" let's use a more grim example. Let's say I rape a chick, she goes to the police and says "he raped me!" and I say "did I rape you or was your vagina attacking my penis?" Now who here thinks that argument would keep me out of jail?

But then again I suppose a brutal rape cartoon wouldn't be appropriate for the funny pages.

Oh and if I ever do decide having a soul is overrated and make a brutal rape cartoon for the funny pages, I'm gonna DEMAND that it's right next to garfield and marmaduke

[Frublz]

[QUOTE=TASmith;2195692]the guy in the suit is right in theory, but not in practice. He's just using theory to justify poor behavior./QUOTE]No, he's right in theory and in practice. People simply refuse to live in such a grim world and accept the truth that justice and moral is in the eye of the beholder and that there aren't such things.

The legal system is a way of sacrificing the needs of the few for the needs of the many, that's all there is too it. And the many control the justice system.

Humans are evolved beings, there is no intelligent design, humans sacrifice the truth every day so that they may keep on living in their dream world where good and evil, justice and all those constructs exists and where they are always the good guys themselves. Because you make more babies then, simple reason.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

You say there is no intelligent design, I assume you've unlocked some secret to the universe?

Personally I've never had much patience for "reality" or logic. Reality is always so predictable, I already know what's possible, I'm more interested in what's impossible or at the least improbable. In any case if you're right and the world is in fact absent of right and wrong, then who are you to say that living in a dream world is wrong?

[l33t fl33t]

the guy in the suit is right in theory, but not in practice. He's just using theory to justify poor behavior.

Actually, he's right in both, figuratively speaking. Of course, the cartoon is blatantly trivialized and shows clearly where the artist stands.

A much better example would be:
1) A Chinese lives on $1 a day.
2) A Chinese lives on $1 a day.

One person could argue that it's horrible that this Chinese person is living on $1 a day. Another, perhaps privy to the Chinese man's alternatives, might say that it's awesome that he earns that much.


I don't buy the "guy in a suit theory" let's use a more grim example. Let's say I rape a chick, she goes to the police and says "he raped me!" and I say "did I rape you or was your vagina attacking my penis?" Now who here thinks that argument would keep me out of jail?

If you could reliably prove that her vagina attacked your penis, you'd probably get off.

Modern law doesn't work on the principle "he did so and so" to determine guilt. Rather, there's a lot of proving and logic involved - remember "innocent until proven guilty?"

Unfortunately for you, medical examination can tell if she was raped, your DNA could be found inside and there's a witness. Hence, there's a pretty good case against you.

Don't mistake a valid concept (internalized preconceptions) for a baseless argument.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

actually medical examination couldn't prove she was raped. Finding my DNA would only prove that we had sex, the only thing making the police think "he raped her" is the girl saying "he raped me" so in this case it actually does rely very much on the principle of "he did so and so". But I get the feeling I'm just arguing semantics here haha

My whole problem with the internalized preconception theory is this: the theory is based around the idea that there is no ultimate truth: So how can one say that the theory is true and not just one of its own hypothetical ideas of reality? Isn't treating the entire idea of internalized preconceptions theory as truth a contradiction of itself?

[Frublz]

You say there is no intelligent design, I assume you've unlocked some secret to the universe?No, I meant to say that humans weren't design for some purpose, they are evolved to procreate and will sacrifice all just for that. We weren't evolved to be 'advanced' or 'thinkers' and as such we'll happily throw all logic out the window if it shatters our little dream world.

Same thing with said world, the world isn't designed either, it's a cruel and brutal place and concepts such as 'justice' or a line between good and evil and good and evil at all don't exist, they are invented by man to rationalize for themselves why they think they are awesome.

[l33t fl33t]

actually medical examination couldn't prove she was raped. Finding my DNA would only prove that we had sex, the only thing making the police think "he raped her" is the girl saying "he raped me" so in this case it actually does rely very much on the principle of "he did so and so". But I get the feeling I'm just arguing semantics here haha

Actually you're right, medical examination can't tell if it was rape or not. Darn it, I could have sworn I read somewhere that medical examination of the vagina could tell if the sex was consensual. Alas, I cannot find that source...


My whole problem with the internalized preconception theory is this: the theory is based around the idea that there is no ultimate truth: So how can one say that the theory is true and not just one of its own hypothetical ideas of reality? Isn't treating the entire idea of internalized preconceptions theory as truth a contradiction of itself?

I think it means that, since we're not privy to all information and that any information we do receive goes through a filter, we are incapable of comprehending ultimate truth. To answer your second question, the theory seems more of a way of saying "I don't know for sure" rather than saying "it's all in our heads".

The theory acknowledges that it's all in the eye of the beholder and that just because I see one thing doesn't mean that you will, too. Of course, just because you see a fly as an elephant doesn't really mean that it's an elephant. Unless you prove it is, of course. The point being that we see a fly and you have to convince us it's an elephant.

[Nalot]

Darn it, I could have sworn I read somewhere that medical examination of the vagina could tell if the sex was consensual. Alas, I cannot find that source...



.

CSI...

In all the episodes of CSI where there is a rape, or assumed rape, they do a "clock" a woman gets bruised during sex and the clock indicates if it was normal or forced bruising.

I have no idea if this is true outside the world of fictional television.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Frublz: I do agree that beneath all of our complex thought there tends to lie base urges for survival and procreation. Most of these things manifest themselves in everyday ways that we don't usually notice. However I disagree with the notion that people weren't evolved to be thinkers. In fact, it's the fact that we're thinkers that's allowed us to evolve. We're certainly not the fastest, nor the strongest, we can't breath under water, we don't have sharp fangs, no sharp claws, no camouflage, nothing. It's our thought and intelligence that puts us at the top of the food chain, it's what gives us the ability to put animals in zoos that would otherwise hunt us

l33t fl33t: If I remember correctly the medical examination to determine if someone has been raped generally depends on vaginal tearing (I watch too many of those crime sitcoms) that usually happens during the struggling and can be countered by the person saying "so what? she likes it rough" but I could be mistaken. In any case let's end that argument now because it's completely irrelevant to anything haha

For the record, I've never really opposed the idea that morality is largely objective since most of our moral bases as proof of morality tends to be rooted in religion, which is up for personal speculation (and please for the love of god no one start a religious debate). However, I do think that there are certain things that we all agree one person shouldn't do, like the aforementioned rape example. I think we both accept that good and evil are matters of personal perception, yet if I saw someone trying to rape a woman I'd try and stop him, wouldn't you?

As for the fly and the elephant thing I could argue that what I call the animal (or insect) is irrelevant. A title is just a title and nothing more. A mental reference to a preconceived notion of what something is. Which means regardless of what I choose to call the animal (or insect) won't change the fact that we're all in fact referring to the same thing. As my speech teach put it "words don't have meaning, people have meaning for words". But again, that's just arguing semantics (I like to argue semantics as you may have noticed)

[l33t fl33t]

As for the fly and the elephant thing I could argue that what I call the animal (or insect) is irrelevant. A title is just a title and nothing more. A mental reference to a preconceived notion of what something is. Which means regardless of what I choose to call the animal (or insect) won't change the fact that we're all in fact referring to the same thing. As my speech teach put it "words don't have meaning, people have meaning for words". But again, that's just arguing semantics (I like to argue semantics as you may have noticed)

No, it's not about titles and it's not about semantics. And it's actually quite important.

I assume we all agree that theft is something we shouldn't do. What about Robin Hood then? Or, to make it even harder, what about modern wealth redistribution?

Our own internal interpretation, even when it's made with faulty logic, strongly defines how we view something.

[Frublz]

Frublz: I do agree that beneath all of our complex thought there tends to lie base urges for survival and procreation. Most of these things manifest themselves in everyday ways that we don't usually notice. However I disagree with the notion that people weren't evolved to be thinkers. In fact, it's the fact that we're thinkers that's allowed us to evolve. We're certainly not the fastest, nor the strongest, we can't breath under water, we don't have sharp fangs, no sharp claws, no camouflage, nothing. It's our thought and intelligence that puts us at the top of the food chain, it's what gives us the ability to put animals in zoos that would otherwise hunt usWe're 'thinkers' now? I think the sheer amounts of logical fallacies in this topic alone attests otherwise. Humans aren't thinkers, humans are communicators, the human vessel of communication is highly precise and it's this which has allowed us to advance. There are lot of species like octopodes, dolphins and various other primates which are superior to us in solving problems. However humans have the ability to communicate our ideas and thus the next generation can build on them. We were never the top of the food chains 60 000 years back when our intelligence was the same. But now we have advanced a lot because we can communicate our ideas so that the next generation can build on it. Also, keep in mind that the system of 'food chains' is chosen quite handily so that humans get on top. Food chains in reality don't exist, there are food webs and there is no 'on top', it's not that linear. Humans are used (eaten) by a variety of microbes and virus for procreation, those microbes are eaten by other species which biomass in the end ends up at our plate. There's no reason to not say that the aids infection doesn't feed on us, it kills us and uses our resources to procreate, but people love to keep that out of it so that it establishes humans as the 'top of the food chains', we are quite the egocentric and self-important species.[/QUOTE]

And really, humans aren't thinkers, humans are as savage as the next creature. We have a higher problem-solving apparatus than most species but we're not thinkers and we like to bend logic if we don't like the conclusion of it. That people still defend the concept of 'justice' which trivially comes down to nonsense as well as that biologists like to defend the concept of 'species', which clearly is nonsense because people are programmed to place other things in groups regardless of that such groups cannot be easily constructed. Individual lifeforms cannot be discretely placed in groups because they blend over into each other continuously and the 'Two animals are of the same species if they can procreate fertile offspring together' rule is absurd because together with the common ancestor theory.. I am the same species as a random fish. The concept of species cannot exist, and thinkers realize this. Humans however are so prae-programmed in wanting to place every-thing they encounter in groups, regardless of if it's possible or not that they will still find a way to bend the logic.

[TASmith]

"If you could reliably prove that her vagina attacked your penis, you'd probably get off."

Did anyone else laugh when they read this? I mean all the logic is faulty, but I have to admit, this much is probably true... this is getting too crude for me...

[Baron Impossible]

I've just finished reading this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070 - which is definitely worth a look if you're interested.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

l33t fl33t: What we call things is only relevant in the context of efficiently communicating an idea. Which yes, is important, but what we choose to call things and how we choose to see them is irrelevant to what those things really are

Ok so you take money from the rich and give to the poor. What if one of the rich people you took that money from was going to use it to give medicine to their sick child? What if the child dies then? What if the child was going to be the next Hitler? What is the actions of that child would later prove beneficial in influencing someone else to promote world peace? I don't really believe in a definite right and wrong in regards to the actual good or bad that comes out of an action. Signifigance doesn't lie in an action but the context in which it's carried out

Frublz: In a strict linear sense, you're right there is no food chain. There is no indefinite "we're on top" mentality because as everyone knows, people can still become prey to superior predators. The reason I think we're on top is because we've progressed to a point where we no longer need several survival skills that were once necessary

Maybe it's just me but I'm not really seeing your point. I'm sure there are many animals that excel in problem solving, but can those animals fix a car engine? Do they know how to build a large hadron collider or what it does? What exactly makes an animal a "thinker" in your opinion?

[Frublz]

Frublz: In a strict linear sense, you're right there is no food chain. There is no indefinite "we're on top" mentality because as everyone knows, people can still become prey to superior predators. The reason I think we're on top is because we've progressed to a point where we no longer need several survival skills that were once necessary

1: That's so with all creatures.
2: So we're superior because we waste energy of useless skills now?

[Straight Edge Ryan]

1: That's so with all creatures.
2: So we're superior because we waste energy of useless skills now?

1: yes but less so with us. Were it not for technology we wouldn't stand a chance at killing predators much more capable than us. For example, I can get a gun and kill a lion. From a natural selection viewpoint there's no way in hell I should be able to kill that lion, it's faster, stronger and a better hunter than me, yet I still win. Why? Because we're smart enough to use the tools from our environment

2: Creating an engine is a useless skill? Even though it was beneficial in furthering the advancement oh human technology? Even though the knowledge that was unlocked through it probably had a beneficial hand in creating the computers that we're now arguing on? Since these skills are useless I take it you don't drive a car? I just don't understand how a monkey being able to solve a problem is somehow more significant than thousands of years of human advancement, especially since technology is a product of problem solving. Someone said "well horses aren't fast enough to take us where we need to go so how do we improve on that?" Fast forward a few hundred years and we have cars. I just don't see how that isn't considered "thinking"

[squidmonk3j]

the anthropocentric field's escape velocity can be difficult to achieve:)

[Frublz]

1: yes but less so with us. Were it not for technology we wouldn't stand a chance at killing predators much more capable than us. For example, I can get a gun and kill a lion. From a natural selection viewpoint there's no way in hell I should be able to kill that lion, it's faster, stronger and a better hunter than me, yet I still win. Why? Because we're smart enough to use the tools from our environmentWe aren't smarter than we were 70 000 years ago, and we couldn't do it then? Like I said, it's not our intellect, it's our ability to communicate, human language can communicate ideas very precisely.

2: Creating an engine is a useless skill? Even though it was beneficial in furthering the advancement oh human technology? Even though the knowledge that was unlocked through it probably had a beneficial hand in creating the computers that we're now arguing on? Since these skills are useless I take it you don't drive a car? I just don't understand how a monkey being able to solve a problem is somehow more significant than thousands of years of human advancement, especially since technology is a product of problem solving. Someone said "well horses aren't fast enough to take us where we need to go so how do we improve on that?" Fast forward a few hundred years and we have cars. I just don't see how that isn't considered "thinking"No, all the traits we don't use any more but still grow physically because of evolution are useless and consume energy. Like hair on our body for a start. We don't really need that any more since the advent of heating systems. But it still grows and keratin causes energy to produce.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Frublz: I get what you're saying, if it weren't for our ability to communicate ideas to each other then we wouldn't have the capacity for the advances we have now. People can explain how something basic works so others can advance it, I understand that. But what you seem to be suggesting is the only thing stopping dolphins from creating technology of their own is their inability to communicate as well as us. Personally I see our superior communication skills as part of our intelligence, not some loophole to bypass intelligence.

It's true that we've evolved past "needing" certain things (like excess body hair) but as you said we're still animals, it could take thousands more years before we're "streamlined" past the point of actually needing any body hair. Our primal drive is still a part of us, if nothing else it's reminiscent of a time when it was necessary. And should, for whatever reason, our technology fail, we'll need it again. So really getting rid of it entirely wouldn't be good on an evolutionary standpoint

oh and by the way l33t fl33t, I think you and I are pretty much saying the same thing. If what you're saying is that the ultimate good or bad of our actions is indeterminate due to our limited view and we should get off our moral high horses, then I agree with you. If what you're saying is that there's no telling if what we're doing is really good or bad so we should be utterly indifferent to everything, then I disagree

[Frublz]

Frublz: I get what you're saying, if it weren't for our ability to communicate ideas to each other then we wouldn't have the capacity for the advances we have now. People can explain how something basic works so others can advance it, I understand that. But what you seem to be suggesting is the only thing stopping dolphins from creating technology of their own is their inability to communicate as well as us. Personally I see our superior communication skills as part of our intelligence, not some loophole to bypass intelligence.Is a person with a big patch of duct-tape on his mouth suddenly less intelligent. Or some-one who's suffered injuries and can't speak any more?

The vocal tract of dolphins can't realize such complex nuances in sounds to begin with. And indeed, Dolphins and chimps can be taught human like language by pressing monitors with their snouts and sign language respectively. And I recall that there was an experiment where a chimp was shown an orange, some-thing he'd never seen before, and was asked what it was in sign language and the response was 'strange orange apple', so they're not as dumb as you think. Dolphins are commonly held to be more intelligent than humans by the way, chimps aren't.

It's true that we've evolved past "needing" certain things (like excess body hair) but as you said we're still animals, it could take thousands more years before we're "streamlined" past the point of actually needing any body hair. Our primal drive is still a part of us, if nothing else it's reminiscent of a time when it was necessary. And should, for whatever reason, our technology fail, we'll need it again. So really getting rid of it entirely wouldn't be good on an evolutionary standpointIf you understood how evolution worked you would realize there is no such thing as an 'evolutionary standpoint' and that evolution doesn't think or plan ahead. Traits don't evolve because they serve a purpose. Traits get there at random and traits stay for the simple reason that individual lifeforms with such traits just happen to get more babies than those who don't. It doesn't even have to be related to survival. Peacock tails are huge and serve no purpose and consume a shitload of energy, but they are there quite simply because female peacocks like males with large tails so they get more children than those with small tails and tails then get bigger. Female peacocks who like males with big tails on the other hand will select one that has, which means that there male children will have big tails which means that those male children are carriers for the genes which ensure that there female children will like big tails, so in the end liking big tails as a female ensures getting more offspring too as a vicious cycle going on and on and magnifying itself. While having big tails, nor liking it helps your survival in any way, more like negative.

People tend to believe that evolution leads to 'advanced' nature, in reality the concept 'more evolved', doesn't exist. Our organs and all are not there for any reason, it's the inverse, they stayed there because our ancestors who had them just made more babies than those who didn't and passed them on, that reason may any thing. From that they allowed them to survive better to the peacock story. And evolution certainly doesn't invariably lead to 'intelligent', 'advanced' or 'strong' creatures, it might very well also lead to creatures who are doomed to die out because it doesn't plan ahead. If some species has evolved to optimally use one nutrition source because doing so enabled them to procreate more, most likely they will have lost the ability to assimilate other forms of nutrition along the way. (If you live of one source, the individuals who not waste energy on being able to digest another source which they never eat of course are more efficient with energy), so, what if that nutrition source then ceases to exist for some reason? They starve and die.

[Black Spot]

Well, I suppose seeing this thread I am Mr. Authority on logic here (I studied maths and you seem to all have no idea what it is), so let me explain a few things which I so love to do and correct you all.


I presume that you are aware of Hilbert’s Two-level Approach (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pd5YaLwZugUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=mathmatics+having+no+basis+in+logic&source=bl&ots=a2apIRwyX-&sig=9-kqDzc5_8CJfYPhlG_KjcNQbek&hl=en&ei=U2DSSbieAdCrjAeswcVx&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA44,M1) - Where he insists that we must not mix up logic and mathmatics?

[tobbA]

"People tend to believe that evolution leads to 'advanced' nature, in reality the concept 'more evolved', doesn't exist. Our organs and all are not there for any reason, it's the inverse, they stayed there because our ancestors who had them just made more babies than those who didn't and passed them on, that reason may any thing. From that they allowed them to survive better to the peacock story. And evolution certainly doesn't invariably lead to 'intelligent', 'advanced' or 'strong' creatures, it might very well also lead to creatures who are doomed to die out because it doesn't plan ahead."

But it does lead to better adapted creatures. Maybe the peakock is evolving into a weaker creature, but the fact that it can do that is because it doesn't need to do it in any other way. If times suddenly were to get rougher for the peacocks those with too large tailfeathers would start dying and those without would be the ones who got more kids.

"It's true that we've evolved past "needing" certain things (like excess body hair) but as you said we're still animals, it could take thousands more years before we're "streamlined" past the point of actually needing any body hair."

Actually, body hair went away long before humans started wearing clothes. After all, humanity evolved in Africa, and most humans in warmer countries barely wear any clothes at all. There are many who believe that humanity's ancestors used to live very close to the sea for a few million years, which is why we lost all hair on our bodies and only kept what's on our heads so that children could hang on to it while we were swimming. :)

[CouchPotato]

Our organs and all are not there for any reason, it's the inverse, they stayed there because our ancestors who had them just made more babies than those who didn't and passed them on, that reason may any thing.

I agree with most of what you say, and Darwin himself made a case for sexual selection (peacock feathers, loss of human body hair, etc). I just think this sentence requires refinement. A species evolve so that they may live long enough to reproduce successfully in a way that ensures that enough of the offspring will carry on to reproduce later. Our organs are around for that reason, because if an organ doesn't work, it's quite likely to be fatal, and chances are we won't survive long enough to reproduce. So most things that stay around with any species tend to stay around either because they don't do anything harmful enough to kill the species (freeloaders) before reproduction, or they do give an edge to a species in the reproduction game in some incremental measure.

"that reason may any thing" is maybe stretching it a bit too far, is what I think at least.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

No you're right, put duct tape on the mouth of a genius and he's still a genius, but that's kind of my point. I don't doubt that many animals have more of a capacity for intelligence then we give them credit for, but do I believe they're as smart as humans? No. A dolphin can be taught sign language which is impressive but keep in mind that only shows they have the capacity to comprehend the basics of a language that we invented and they can learn things that we teach them. When all is said and done we're the ones teaching them. The day that dolphins form a functioning community and begin teaching humans the ways of dolphin society, I'll throw my hands up and say "ok you got me there, dolphins are smarter"

Of course our organs are there for a reason, they're there to keep us alive. They're necessary for survival, our bodies change depending on how it best suits us for survival. Same with peacocks, the feather are there to attract mates, it's a necessary trait for procreation to weed out "weak" genetics to ensure that only the fit pass on those traits to the next generation. There's still evidence of this in animals and ourselves today. It's why fish that live in deep dark waters are blind but still have remains of non-functioning eyes and over developed senses to compensate, it's why our appendix is completely vestigial. Early human skulls that have been found show that humans used to have much wider jaws and more teeth to help grind down foliage since our digestive systems couldn't really digest the cellulose found in plants, as our diets changed or jaws got smaller leaving less room, which is why wisdom teeth are such a pain in the ass now.

[George Abraham]

In carlos castenada's books the sorcerers point out to Carlos that logic or sensibillity is just one of many systems folks cling to for mental security and safety and belief.

The argument goes that you can prove anything with any system.

What that ultimately implies is that if a miracle happens you could most prolly go into depth scientific research and find proof or why something happened the way it did. "Scientifically"

Where as with faith that is more abstract, you would simply accept what happened as a miracle, how is not important.

Schizophrenia taught me that logic is just another form of sorcery. It's just the most popular one. If you try you can make sense and convince anyone of anything. When you are schitzoid your logical foundation basically scares the living hell out of you, as all kinds of crap suddenly becomes logical.

But logic also bleeds into all other kinds of stuff, Social Relativity or Reality that is just a place where groups agree, etc.. etc.. The only thing that makes you schitzoid is that no one can relate, the social aspect is gone but the math used for logic is the same. Agreement for some is a strong measure of sanity, especially extroverts, they would babble their stuff and check your reactions to see if they are still OK.
When schitzoid you need to develop new ground works. Your botheredness. How much does any crap affect you. Once you fix that energy you are normal chappy again in no time.


I like Magic or Faith in the form of Creativity. It turns out that faith and believing is not the same. Faith for me is where you are crazy enough to believe something non substatial or creative but it allows for the bizarre and miraculous to happen. It makes room for it but you need to cast these into the source(Sorcery). I see no diffs between the way faith is supposed to operate and the way toltec sorcerers worked. They are both crazy. They accept the unknown as it is, The great unknown, and they allow for stuff to happen in the unknown sea that you don't need to know how.

[Carnifex]

since i'm rather confused what this is about right now,i'll just throw out this:

<ajax> Some people...have the idea that evolution is a fucking system of...
<ajax> "oh i need flippers, i'd better grow some" type bullshit. :P
<ajax> It's more like "Oh shit look at that freak over there with the flippers hahaha OH SHIT I AM DROWNING OH GOD SAVE ME FLIPPER BOY".

back to the drawing board...

[Baron Impossible]

Dolphins are commonly held to be more intelligent than humans by the way

Excuse me? Not only are they "commonly" not held to be more intelligent than humans there is no credible scientist on the planet who would claim this. Not even Lilly, who barely fits the criterion in the first place.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Two animals are of the same species if they can procreate fertile offspring together' rule
Just to let you know...this is not a rule, but only a consideration. For example there is still a debate if Poecilia sp. Endler's is a distinct species or a variant of Poecilia reticulata. They interbreed easily, but are found in different environments. There are many species recognized as distinct in the family Cichildae that can interbreed as well.

[LORD M]

Just to let you know...this is not a rule, but only a consideration. For example there is still a debate if Poecilia sp. Endler's is a distinct species or a variant of Poecilia reticulata. They interbreed easily, but are found in different environments. There are many species recognized as distinct in the family Cichildae that can interbreed as well.

The concept of species is still a bit fuzzy in the biology world. For example when two populations with a common ancestor have started to differ from eachother pretty much in both genotype and phenotye then they can be classified as species - even if they can create fertile hybrids. I mean just look at the tiger and the lion which together can create the liger-hybrid. But then again we use the term "races" to dogs which differ aswell in phenotype, but not so much in genotype. Genes might be what define species the best. Some beetles in the same family that looks almost the same cannot interbreed or create fertile offspring, it's probably because their genotype differs too much. Sorry for my biologist ranting.

[r.mccabe]

wow you guys should be, like professors or something. :wtf:

Edit: if this is serious; at least use citations from credible sources ie. not wiki.

[LORD M]

wow you guys should be, like professors or something. :wtf:

Edit: if this is serious; at least use citations from credible sources ie. not wiki.

Uhm, sorry for not adding sources to my statements. This is just stuff I know in my head, been studying evolutionary biology for the last three years. And yes, I hope I'll become a professor someday. :P

[Cthogua]

This can be inserted in many more things then pinguins and humans.


This entire thread was worth reading just to get to this line.
Donkey show anyone? :mod:

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Thanks to LordM for giving a more in-depth explanation. The reason that I did not use ligers, or mules as an example however is the fact that in most mammalian species, although offspring can be produced, they are sterile. In piscean species however, this is not always the case. The "Blood Parrot" cichlid which is known man-made hybrid (although the exact species are unknown...possibly Heros severus x Amphilophus citrinellus)...is normally sterile, but does produce offspring on rare occasions. Other species may produce hybrids that have decreased off spring yields, or higher deformity rates. (And no I don't have sources on hand...have just spent a lot of time doing research)

Edit = Decided this post needs more humor:
http://xkcd.com/520/
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cuttlefish.png

[r.mccabe]

Uhm, sorry for not adding sources to my statements. This is just stuff I know in my head, been studying evolutionary biology for the last three years. And yes, I hope I'll become a professor someday. :P

Twas just a comment on the sheer volume of hypotheses and conclusions here.

Edit: don't think it was you anyhow, Lord M. Cudous for saying what you know.

[Elwell]

wow you guys should be, like professors or something. :wtf:

Edit: if this is serious; at least use citations from credible sources ie. not wiki.

There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia as starting point, and the scientific entries tend to be well sourced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[bluefooted]

Edit: if this is serious; at least use citations from credible sources ie. not wiki.

Yeah, Lord M really wasn't saying anything that isn't part of basic biology. And I like wiki... sometimes.

[LORD M]

Many mammalians, as you said Aphotic Phoenix, create infertile offspring. But the liger ain't one of those, even though in some cases they are sterile.

About hybrids, I think it all might get clearer (or maybe a bit more confusing) if you check Haldane's rule up. Much depends on which sex is heterogametic (you know, XY chromosomes.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule

(sorry for using wikipedia, but I'm going to sleep really soon and needed a fast ok source.)

[tobbA]

"Edit: if this is serious; at least use citations from credible sources ie. not wiki."

Actually, wikipedia has been reported to be more credible than most printed encyclopedias... so I don't really think that's an issue

(I don't have any sources to back this up though X) Just heard it from my dad)

[Aphotic Phoenix]

I stand corrected on the ligers then. ^_^ (Psyc major, I <3 Bio but dissections (and even some class discussions) make me pass out :/ Just have a serious hobby for aquariums)

[LORD M]

I stand corrected on the ligers then. ^_^ (Psyc major, I <3 Bio but dissections (and even some class discussions) make me pass out :/ Just have a serious hobby for aquariums)

Whaaaa?! How can anyone not like dissections? :P It's like the most intressting thing ever. I even took a course just because of it having many dissections. (I dissected baby Bambi aswell).

[Aphotic Phoenix]

It's not that I dislike them... I don't have any type of moral objection, and agree it's fascinating, but it causes my blood sugar level to drop so quickly I'm lucky if I get the chance to stumble out of the room before hitting the floor.

[George Abraham]

You are what you eat.

[LORD M]

You are what you eat.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9681/burritou.jpg

[Grief]

635660

[sketchfreak]

I'm Superman! ... what?! ... nothing!