decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The benefits of anonymous discussion | 286 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The benefits of anonymous discussion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
Thus you demonstrate a distinction between logic and reason. ;)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The benefits of anonymous discussion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
That's a very dangerous road to take.

Almost all the politically-created ills of mankind today stem from giving
credence to personalities instead of to logical arguments. The examples of this
are legion, and occur every single day throughout the world.

The "no time to analyze fully yourself" argument is not justified,
because *some* people will always find the time to analyze even the most complex
arguments and highlight their flaws. In so doing, they narrow the time needed
for logical analyses by everyone else simply because they deliver focus, not
through force of personality nor reputation. Other similarly competent analysts
will in turn point out any flaws in the logic of the former, and so on.

Logic shares a property with scientific theories: a single contrary observation
(once verified by others) is enough to shatter a theory for good, and so it is
with logical argument. This vastly reduces the barrier to logical thinking
about complex issues, because the only arguments left to consider are those
which survive the onslaught from logical analysts, and those themselves are
self-correcting.

Of course, human systems are far from perfect, and I do not for an instant
suggest that we could achieve perfection in this way. However, I do believe
that our current personality-based systems are so appallingly imperfect,
corrupt, and simply non-working that any increase in the ascendancy of logic can
only improve matters.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )