The subject of this topic emerged in the Glossary-Topic.  

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-11-18 18:05:24 --

So you have the identical argument-term as chris. I prefer to look for the argument-weight, to look "between 0 and 100" and not to judge if "1 or 0".  

A3 is pretty near to 0, but it is not 0 of my argument-weight-point of view.


Have you any argument for your last proposition ? I dont see any argument for this proposition "moreover it would be better, I think, to start the numbering on the border rather than on the centre".  

Chriscool said:

Quote :

to I.A.1.: this is a subjective answer. The relevance of the argument A.1. is obvious, I think so. If "manhatten-distance" is an "argument" for both, than the  cells-example is also an "argument".

Stating that it is obvious has nothing to do with argumentation. The manhattan distance is an argument because this distance is used in tactical or strategical calculations. How useful is the ability to have integer calculuus of the number of spots in the whole board in terms of rings ? Answering to that question will demonstrate how relevant (or not) this argument is.

Quote :

to A.3: nobody is speaking of "proof", we speak of arguments. A.3 is an analogy and an analogy can be an "argument". One should show the inadequacy of the analogy and not denunciate an analgoy, since it is an analogy. This is too general, I think so.

An argument is a proof as long as it is logical. An analogy is everything but a logical argument. Thus, it can be use in order to try to convince someone but is quite invalid if the purpose is to demonstrate anything (demonstration relies on logical arguments).

Quote :

is a subjective feeling AND a presentable expression of many Players, to the "common Abalone-perception" - as I have written. If you dont think that this is the case, then you should show the opposite.

I'm interrested by objective, rational, logical facts allowing to chose between 4 rings+1 spot or 5 rings representation.

However, if you want me to show the opposite of "It seems obvious to me that the center is a spot, not a ring.
Therefore there are 4 rings with e5 at the center.", well it is quite easy : it seems obvious to me that the center is a ring - therefore there are 5 rings.

I don't think any discussion will go anywhere based on this kind of (pseudo-)argumentation.

Quote :

We dont speak of terms for Programming here

Well, you are partly right and partly wrong. You are right because, of course, we are not talking about programming. You are wrong because programming, IAs, algorithms and cognitive processes are highly connected.

If we agree that a general abalone theory will have, sooner or later, more to do with mathematics or algorithms than pure dialectics, then we should agree that a representation allowing simplier expression of equations or algorithms presents strong advantages.

If the purpose is to stay at a dialectic level, i agree that my point is irrelevant.

Quote :

"if one and only one should be chosen, then the rings only representation should be this one." I think this is your preference, probably because B1 and B2 have the strongest argument-weight for you.

Exactly.

In order to evaluate the weight of each argument, we have to find out the reasons why we want a normalized representation and all the consequences of such a representation. De facto, sooner or later, the 5 rings representation will be needed (unless we forget the concept of rings). So, it just makes sense to me that the 5 rings representation should be chosen if we want one and only one representation.

But why just bother with the concept of ring ? Because it is assumed that spots of the same rings share tactical or strategical properties and that a specific analysis can be made based on those properties.

I'm sure you will agree that the number of abstractions used has a direct impact on a system's complexity. By mixing different abstractions (4 rings + 1 spot), you are mixing diferent angles of analysis and introducing more complexity.  

Hello,

I think first we have to understand some terms, because without terms we can not talk here in a fruitful way.
So first (I.) I try to introduce some terms "logical", "argument", "analogy", "content", strong/ low "argument-weight"

Then (II.) I will come back to the discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I. Terms

This is your understanding of "logical", "argument" and "analogy":

Quote :

An argument is a proof as long as it is logical. An analogy is everything but a logical argument.

I make a different suggestion for these terms:

a simple argument:

A -> B
A
-------
B

argument, logical
The "structure" (-> etc.) of the argument is "logical". This is the level of the "structure of the argument".
"Logic" is the science for this structure-level.

content and analogy:
The "content" of an argument are A,B, C ... or any other "facts".  There are "empirical sciences" to validate this contents/facts OR there has to be a discussion in a social sphere - for example like in this forum or in other social matters.

-> Of the point of view of this introduced terms:
You are  right, if you say: a analogy is everything but a logical argument. Yes, an analogy is not a structure of an argument (structure-level).
But this does not fit the level. The analogy can be a content of a argument (A, B,  C, ...). (content-level)
The content of an argument can be manhatten-distance, the obviousness of cells-counting, an analogy etc..

-------------------------------------------------------------

My suggestion for the term "argument-weight":

The sense of this topic is a "discussion" . In a discussion we can exchange arguments and everyone has to build his own opinion. What you say is your opinion and what I say is my opinion - everyone has the own measure. Everyone has his own "arguments" of his point of view - this is the personal point of view.
 
Finally, and this is decisive, WE have pretty to agree for a definition. I think, its not a personal task to say "this is true" and this is "objective fact". We have to agree in communication, this is the final goal.  
And this "We"-perspective is what I meant with "argument-weight".
Everyone can try to share this We-perspective. I think it is not fruitful to say "this is not a argument" on this level. "We" only have "to agree" in the argument-weight and in the strongest argument.

For example, we both agreed that the argument A3 has a low weight. There is no necessity to discuss, if this is a "rational, objective fact" or not. This is and should not be our point of view, I think so.

(By the way I have never seen any rational, objective fact, only ideas of this.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

I dont agree that the general theory will have to do with mathematics. It can, but there is no necessity.
This is the topic Glossary and this is the Forum of the General Theory - I thought all programmers here had realized this.

chriscool said:

Quote :

The sense of this topic is a "discussion" . In a discussion we can exchange arguments and everyone has to build his own opinion. What you say is your opinion and what I say is my opinion - everyone has the own measure. Everyone has his own "arguments" of his point of view - this is the personal point of view.   Finally, and this is decisive, WE have pretty to agree for a definition. I think, its not a personal task to say "this is true" and this is "objective fact". We have to agree in communication, this is the final goal.   And this "We"-perspective is what I meant with "argument-weight". Everyone can try to share this We-perspective. I think it is not fruitful to say "this is not a argument" on this level. "We" only have "to agree" in the argument-weight and in the strongest argument.

I strongly disagree with many points here.

First, i disagree with the meaning you seem to give to "discussion". It doesn't imply to me that anybody can say anything. At least, the interactivity and the ability for mutual understanding are fundamental. With life and all in it being experienced in a personnal manner, we have to articulate a discussion around something that would be commun. This is what you do when you try to give precise definitions of this or that term. I don't know many things being more common than logical expressions, which go far beyond language and culture (ie you can rely on logical expression even if the other contributors do not share the same culture).

I don't think it is possible to have real discussions without logical expressions. How can you discuss around an expression like "i feel that god exists, then it exists" ?

There is hardly any possibility to understand each other if we don't rely on logical expressions, particulary on internet. Without the ability to understand each other, i can hardly see any possible discussion.

So, i don't consider a discussion as just the expression of different opinions. Each opinion has to be argued on logical basis so that a discussion is possible.

As an exemple, if you say things like "i feel good", "i feel bad" or "i feel like god exists", there is not much to discuss about.

You said that everyone had one's own measure. The fact is that everyone has one's own experience, but we have to bring it to some more common (if not universal) measures in order to share it with others. As i said, i don't know any measure more universal than logical expressions. Particullary, the fact that it is unpersonnal allows to disagree without anyone feeling personnally attacked. I am more likely to accept your disagreement if you point out my logical errors that leads you to such a disagreement rather than by emitting opposite assertions.

There must be some interface between your assertions and mine. I don't know any better interface than logical expressions.

Without such an interface, there is nothing i could call a discussion.  

And now again: Chriscool is claiming again for logic !
I dont know what you mean with your term "logic".  All what you say is in my ears not "logic".  
What do you mean with logic ? This sounds like "rational" in a common sense meaning. But what is this ? Have you any criteria ?

logical:

"i feel that god exists, then it exists"

A: I feel that god exists
B: my feeling is the proof for reality
C: good exists

A & B -> C

This is a "logic" "argument". No doubt! Isnt it ? (logic-level)

The only problem is the "content" of B and C. (content-level)

The problem is not the logical argument, but the validation of the content.
This are two different levels.


I never said, that we dont have to argue logical. (logical level)
I only said, we have to discuss the "argument-weight" (content-level)
Is this too difficult to understand ? It is too difficult to divide the logical level and the content level in an argumentation ?

I have introduced terms for logic, argument, etc. and I did not say, that we dont have to argue logical. More the contrary.

Can you please introduce what you mean with logic and argument, chris ?
I am very curious !


The term discussion:
I did not say that we can say everything in the discussion. I said, that the discussion-aim is to validate the arguments on the "WE-Level".


      argument
     /     \
    /       \
logical     content
              \
               --> validation of the content-level in the We-discussion         (Forum-Aim)  
             /
I         we
 \        /
  \      /
point of view  


The aim of the Forum is to validate the content in the discussion, I think so. The logical level was very simple in every argument.  

Chris said:

Quote :

bout what i call logic, well, just search google for deductive and inductive inferences, or just "valid argument" and you'll find, i think, clear explanations of what i am talking about. In particular, logic is not a subjective concept. And i have given a logical argumentation for using 5 rings rather than 4 rings+1 spot. I will sum it up : 1- Abstraction reduces complexity by providing less concepts to handle => 2- all other things being equal(*), handling one concept should provide less complexity than handling two concepts => 3- A 5 rings representation uses less concepts than 4 rings+1 spot. Then 5 rings should lead to a less complex representation. This is a logical argumentation (deduction based). (*) the restriction "all things being equal" means that if some advantages are found for a 4 rings+1 spot then this reasonning has to be re-evaluate.

 

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-11-20 05:31:00 --

I never said that logic is a subjective concept.
I said that there are different point of views - one of this is the I.

Quote :

argument      /     \     /       \ logical     content               \                --> validation of the content-level in the We-discussion         (Forum-Aim)                / I         we  \        /   \      / point of view

There is a "logic-level" and a "content-level" in the argumentation for validation. I think you speak of the logical validation, but this was not my question, rather the empirical validation.

I dont think that google does not agree with my terms.

My point of view is that you dont see that the validation is not only the task of the logic, independent of inductive or deductive inference.
You can creat a big logical tree: A-> B-> C_> etc.
But the empirical validation is independent of logic.  
If you have a inductive inference than you have true/false tabels and in the case of deductive you have the same problem of the validation of the content A,B,C. The logic is only a structure with a logical validation of logic-forms, far away of an empirical validation, but is depending on empirical validation. Empirical Validation is a task of empirical-methods or/and discussion.


And i dont agree that it is necessary for the term zone to have the same distance, more the contrary. Zone is a term, which allows different distances and this is very helpful.  


This is your logical-valid example:

Quote :

1- Abstraction reduces complexity by providing less concepts to handle => 2- all other things being equal(*), handling one concept should provide less complexity than handling two concepts => 3- A 5 rings representation uses less concepts than 4 rings+1 spot. Then 5 rings should lead to a less complex representation."

But the question is still, if the 1,2,3 are empircal-valid facts. And what weight has this argument (argument-weight) in the We-discussion.

All the time I speak of these two other points. It is not sufficient or even necessary to creat a logical-argument.
You can put everything in it.  


If you regard again this table:

 argument
     /     \
    /       \
logical    content
              \
               --> validation of the content-level in the We-discussion         (Forum-Aim)  
             /
I        we
 \        /
  \      /
point of view


With all your deductive and inductive logical-arguments you only get the logical level in this table. You creat a argument and this is logic for you and this is logical for all. So it is a logical-valid argument.
Maybe it is empircal-valid for you, too. But the question is, if
1. the argument is empircal-valid for all others
2. And what weight has this argument in a We-point-of-view.

You can creat 1000 logical and empirical valid arguments with contrary intentions. Finaly it is the question, which is the argument-weight of the We-point-of-view.

You neglect all the time the empirical-validation and the We-point-of-view of the discussion, I thnk so. The logical-world and the empirical point of view of one Ego is not enough!  

Of my point of view there are three levels:

1. the logical level of the argument
2. the empirical level of the argument
3. the discussion

------------------------------------------------

1. and 2.

A argument has two levels:

1. logical-level
2. content-level

There are two validations:
1. a logical validation of the logical inference (inductive or deductive)
-> valid forms

2. an empirical validation of the empirical evidence
-> valid content

1.

You can put any content in an argumentation and this can be logical valid.

A:  All supermen can fly
B:  Abalekon is a superman
C:  Abalekon can fly

A,B -> C

But what is logic here ? Its only the "structure".
you can neglect the content. The main-aim is only to finde valid forms. And the plot is: valid forms independent of the content!

This is a form:

p v q -> (-p -> q)

You can prove this form with a deductive calculus, without any content. And you can prove this form with a semantic-table - you can show if there is a valid form for some values of all possible semantic-table-values (true, false).

All examples we had in the topic glossary are simple implicit arguments. You can take every A1-A4 and B1-B3 and you can create simple logical-valid arguments.

I don’t think so that here is the problem.

2.

There is the question of the empirical validation of the content of the arguments A, B, C, 1,2,3 etc.
Since we have no scientific experiments, we have to get a “social consensus” of the empirical validation.
With deductive and inductive logical-arguments you only get the logical level. A person is creating an argument and this is logic for this person and this is logical for all. So it is a logical-valid argument.
Maybe it is empircal-valid for this person, too. But the question is, if
1. the argument is empircal-valid for all others
2. And what weight has this argument in a We-point-of-view.

It is not enough, that one person thinks, that the argument is logical and empirical valid. There must be a consensus.
(Or it will be a lonely project of one person, because all persons only want to regard their argument as the strongest argument.)



3.
There is the problem of the discussion: WE have to find the strongest argument.
-> It is not enough that one person claims that he has a logical argument. And it is not enough that a person claims that he has a logical and empirical valid argument. It is also not enough that a person says, that his argument is the strongest argument.

There has to be a process of social discussion, acceptance and changing of point of views to find the strongest argument.

I think this is the biggest problem of all these problems.
You can put everything into a logical form. You can have many times the opinion that something is empirical valid.  The real problem is the social interaction for the consensus.


>>>>-> My conclusion: There are three different levels and the logical level is a small problem compared with the empirical-validation and the discussion-problem.


I never said,
that we don’t need logical arguments.
that anybody can say anything.
that it is  possible to have real discussions without logical expressions
that logic is a subjective concept.

I wanted to say:

Logical expressions are not enough and it is very easy to form logical expressions with any nonsense.
The important point is the empirical validation in social  consensus  and the process to figure out the importance of the argument in a discussion.

Chriscool said: “As i said, i don't know any measure more universal than logical expressions.”

My answer: Logical inference is far away of a process to find the strongest argument. The measure of a real argumentation/discussion is "the social acting with arguments".  

And in relation to the beginning:
I dont think it is helpful to say in a forum-discussion, that some remarks are not qualified to be "arguments", since someone has not put these remarks into simple valid logical forms. It is more helpful to figure out the weight of these remarks for the discussion.


An argumentation/discussion is a semiotical process:

Semiotic is divided into:
1: Syntax
2: Semantic
3: Pragmatic

In a deductive inference you only need Syntax. In an inductive Inference you need Syntax and Semantic.
But all this is only the "logical level" of the "argument".
Many ignorant philosophers and scientists of the 20. century neglected the pragmatic level. But the reality of "argumentation" is semiotic - pragmatic included.

I think a handicap for all discussions is the acting in a role of the "competent, rational, logical, objetive subject", who only regards the logical level, happy with its own validation, regarding the other people as opponents in a discussion-battle.
And a gain for every discussion is the acting in a role of changing the point of view, with acceptance and the attempt to explain opinions explicit.


---------------------------------------------------------------

this is an argument:

    argument
     /     \
    /       \
logical     content (A,B,C,... 1,2,3 ...)
           

 
There are point of views:

I         we
 \        /
  \      /
point of views




There is a necessity:

to find the strongest argument          



This is the egocentric perspective of one person:

 argument
    /     \
   /       \
logical    content
   \      /                                    
       I    
       |  
       |  
I-point of view (logical and empirical validation)




This is the necessary process:


   argument
    /     \
   /       \
logical    content
             
          --> validation of the content-level in a discussion
             and to find a consensus of the strongest argument
I          we
\        /
 \      /
point of view  

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-11-20 05:43:44 --

Quote :

This is your logical-valid example: 1- Abstraction reduces complexity by providing less concepts to handle => 2- all other things being equal(*), handling one concept should provide less complexity than handling two concepts => 3- A 5 rings representation uses less concepts than 4 rings+1 spot. Then 5 rings should lead to a less complex representation." But the question is still, if the 1,2,3 are empircal-valid facts. And what weight has this argument (argument-weight) in the We-discussion.

Well, 2 and 3 being deductions from 1, you only have to validate or invalidate 1 in order to validate 2 and 3. Unless you point out logical errors going from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3.

About 1 being an (empirical)valid fact, well, it has been considered a valid fact since mathematics. I am more familiar with programming than mathematics, and what i know about it is that every new step that has been done in software design and programming languages relies on reducing complexity by using abstraction. I guess you will easily get confirmation by googling a little bit.

Quote :

With all your deductive and inductive logical-arguments you only get the logical level in this table.

Logic alone leads to nowhere but is a good start to allow debates and discussions. If you present a sequence of logical arguments, you allow the reader to agree or disagree on each specific step rather than having to agree or disagree with the whole.

It is just another application of the "divide and conquer" paradigm. It makes life easier for potential contradictors because they only have to point out that at least one of your assertions is false to refute your conclusion.

It is unclear to me what we are discussing here.

My point is that assertions like "i feel like there are 4 rings, thus there are 4 rings" or "there are paris and periphery thus there are 4 rings and one spot" are completely useless in order to determine the best rings-based representation because there is no valid inference rule between the premices and the conclusions in both statements (the form being "[premice] thus [conclusion]").

I wouldn't have contested a personnal feeling like "4 rings+1 spot sounds more intuitive to me"(1). I contested the reasoning leading to the conclusion in "i feel there are 4 rings+1 spot *thus* there are 4 rings+1 spot"(2). It is flawed for the reason i mentionned previously (no valid inference rule leading from premice to conclusion).

(1) is a valid argument to me but (2) is not because it attempts to rely on logic ("...thus...") but the logic is flawed for the reason above.  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-11-17 18:17:57 --

Hello Chris,

I said:
"But the question is still, if the 1,2,3 are empircal-valid facts. And what weight has this argument (argument-weight) in the We-discussion"

These last sentences were written with a general meaning. I took only your argument as an example in my message.
I never had any doubts that your argument is empirical and logical not valid - this was not the subject of my messages.

I think we can stop here - of my point of view. I tried my best to say what I had to say and probably you tried your best, too.
I regard too many missunderstandings.

This is not sad, I think. I am looking forward.

Thank you,
Silver  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-18 01:08:16 --