Shep is the fucking bomb. One time, as a transition into a discussion about elderly people and medical marijuana, he said that he had a joint problem as an undergrad. That is, he'd roll a joint, and then he'd roll another.
Anyway, I think one can make a pretty firm case that most if not all mental illness is in some way or another related to cognitive dissonance. That's what I took away from that class. Along with the talk of cognitive misers and mental shortcuts.
I'm going to be a little rough on you here in examining your last argument, but only because I've taken intro to logic with Meixner and this is something I remember from it.
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical. B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist. C) The universe is not logical --- Therefore, God exists
Even assuming C is true, which is a pretty rough case to make, the argument is nonetheless deductively invalid; it affirms the consequent (actually because there are two conditionals, you're affirming the consequent of one and negating the subsequent of another). Formally, what you're doing is this:
If G, Not L If L, Not G Not L Therefore G
It's the same as saying:
If it rains, Quincy will not go outside. If Quincy goes outside, it is not raining. Quincy is not outside. Therefore it is raining.
To be deductively valid, the premises must guarantee the conclusion. Clearly, Quincy could be staying inside for another reason. Maybe he couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance of having been granted the light of reason by a God who doesn't exist but not being able to use it because he is a cognitive miser.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 07:07 am (UTC)Anyway, I think one can make a pretty firm case that most if not all mental illness is in some way or another related to cognitive dissonance. That's what I took away from that class. Along with the talk of cognitive misers and mental shortcuts.
I'm going to be a little rough on you here in examining your last argument, but only because I've taken intro to logic with Meixner and this is something I remember from it.
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
C) The universe is not logical
---
Therefore, God exists
Even assuming C is true, which is a pretty rough case to make, the argument is nonetheless deductively invalid; it affirms the consequent (actually because there are two conditionals, you're affirming the consequent of one and negating the subsequent of another). Formally, what you're doing is this:
If G, Not L
If L, Not G
Not L
Therefore G
It's the same as saying:
If it rains, Quincy will not go outside.
If Quincy goes outside, it is not raining.
Quincy is not outside.
Therefore it is raining.
To be deductively valid, the premises must guarantee the conclusion. Clearly, Quincy could be staying inside for another reason. Maybe he couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance of having been granted the light of reason by a God who doesn't exist but not being able to use it because he is a cognitive miser.