Bucc's Logic Thread

[Bondo]

But what I'm saying is whether you consider nature or God your omnipotent being...there is one of them to which all objects are identified.  Thus there are no objects that are completely unidentified so as to be unidentified.  Just because one person doesn't know what they are doesn't make them truly unidentified, it just makes that person not omnipotent.  So seeing as every object is identifiable by this omnipotent being, there is no UFOs.  I'm not talking if there is UFO in the mind of humans but rather, is there a truly unidentified flying object.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo,
I'll try this one more time.  You've said the answer yourself, but are just ignoring it.  Your argument about point of reference doesn't cut it for two reasons.

First, unless otherwise stated, you are talking about the human reference.  Since we are humans, we don't qualify our questions to ourselves, but we do qualify them to other things.  Also, for your point of view on God, you'd have to 1) prove that he exists and 2) prove that he's omnipotent.  Which are not facts to many here seem to agree with.  If Nature is your argument, you'd have to prove that nature is a thinking, reasoning being, because you are personafying nature that way.

Second, since there wasn't a distinct frame of reference (God, The Universe, Humans), they all have to be considered if that's your way of thinking.  If UFO's exist in any of those cases, then they exist.  So, even if something can't be unidentified to God, it can be to humans, therefore, it still can be unidentified.  There was nothing limiting this to just God, even in your arguments.  You narrowed the frame of reference to just fit your answer.  If you had widened it to include all frames of reference, then they still exist  (absolutes are so hard to prove, and that's what you were trying.)

Zaitsev, I still have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

Rob,

Very very good effort, but not quite right (in logic).
First, the joining of the sets was shortened.  But at that point the addition of one statement (fact) can change that.  All that would need to be added is "Objects that fly can be unidentified".  There was nothing excluding the two, so it didn't have to be added unless questioned (shortest possible again).

Second, can vs do.  Very good thinking, but there is a Theory/Law somewhere (I'd have to look it up) that says "If something can happen, then somewhere, sometime, it does happen".  There's also another way to look at this.  Can and Do are often used interchangably.  So, if you just substitue "some objects do" for "objects can", it gives you back the single conclusion.  

Proof:
Objects exist
Some objects do fly
Some objects are unidentified
Not all flying objects are identified
Therefore: UFO's really exist.

I added the fourth statement for you.  This answer isn't as short as possible, but that was because of your first question.

Now, If you want to prove that conclusion wrong, you have to prove the opposite, or challenge the statements.  And since I could easilly demonstrate an UFO, you would lose.  Imagine I take you to your backyard at night, and show you something that is all lit up and hovers over you before leaving.  Without my telling you, it would be unidentified.  You just have to get into the definition of unidentified is all.  You could argue that since I knew what it was, it was identified, then I'd just show you plenty of places where the Air Force listed things as UFO's, because they didn't know what they were.

[Brain]

bucc. you still didnt answer why i lost so many points on that little quiz. i'd like to know where i screwed up

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sorry Brain,

You argument for a ufo was basically logical, but it was too long and wandered (and you didn't change the meaning of what UFO stood for, even though you said you did).  You would have gotten the half point for comeing to the right conclusion in a more or less logical way.

You don't get any points for the second question, which was WHY?  You never answered that question.

[Brain]

i thought i had rolled that into the first answer. if they cant, not exist, then why isnt a valid question(or at least one that would be redundant due to the fact that in the process of proving that they must exist, you have already given the reason why)

oh well, i never was any good at tests anyway

[jn.loudnotes]

Do you happen to have any more Bucc?  Post in a new thread if you do.  . .this one is turning into a theological debate

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Brain, I'll take a wild guess and say that you didn't read my answers in the old thread.  Why? was a seperate question, not part of the UFO question at all.  Check the old thread really quick.

Loucnotes, I'm sure I can come up with a bunch if I think about them.  These only came up as part of a conversation I was having the other day.  I'll post a couple more for ya though.

[Ace]

Yeah, now that I have half a clue how the answer is supposed to be formatted, I should do better. Also, knowing that "Why not?" is an acceptable response helps. Was it just me or did anyone else think of that and not use it because it seemed so inherently 3 year old-ish?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Was it just me or did anyone else think of that and not use it because it seemed so inherently 3 year old-ish?

Only about 99% of the people that see that question Ace.  It teaches an important lesson though.  Often the simplest answer is the right one.  

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

I am almost positive UFOs exist because of these reasons

1.) We live on a planet in a Solar system.

2.) We happen to be the same amount away from the sun, close enough not to freeze and close enough not to be to hot so we can have lifeforms.

3.) We live in a Galazy, how many of these?

4.) Our Galazy Is in one univers how many of those are there?

5.) There are TRILIONS AND TRILLIONS (if not more trilians) of universes.

6.) What do u think the chance is that one planet is the same distance away from the sun as earth??

7.)Than there is a pretty large persentage that there is life elcewhere than earth
_____________________________________________________________________________________

There may not be UFOs around earth but i know that they are real

-SK

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That would have gotten 0 points Silent Killer.

[OoA Rob]

Ok Bucc, I don't know if we are both ready to fully argue this, it can be rather time consuming in research.  I will agrue "we can not conclude UFOs do or do not exist, due to lack of hard complete factual data", while, you may argue "UFOs do exist".  Although, I haven't taken a logic class, yet.  I will try to the best of my ability.  And hey, we can enjoy learning from each other:).  First, I will question vary much, Seeing how we must question the arguments to get to the basis.  

To determine if each  statement  Is true, we must have a "law" to back it up.  While, a "theory" has not been fully proven.  For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is highly debateable, simply becuase it has not been proven.  While laws are mainly undisputed, due to intence proof and the consistancy.  Also, Einstein has showen Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics do not explain everything, Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, and so, it became a theory.  From what I know, there are vary few scientific laws, and many theories.  Theories tend to be more broad; laws, more specific, many times mathematicaly justifiable. More than likly, theories don't become laws; from how complex this world is.

So we can't say "If something can happen, then somewhere, sometime, it does happen" as you parifrased.  I'm almost positive(I am postive, but we must be open minded) there are some exceptions, therefore is a theory.  So, How would we know if in this case about UFOs would be an exception?

BTW, I may add, coming across this link to a university about this stuff, where I goten info.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Rob, while your thinking and research do you credit, you seemed to miss that I could show you a ufo at any time.

But, on to the fun stuff of evaluating your logic.

To determine if each  statement  Is true, we must have a "law" to back it up.  

Not so.  If I say it is snowing (because it is outside my window right now) we don't need a law to prove that.  Logic is often used to prove theories enough to make them laws.  

But, I can see what you are trying to get at, so let's move on.

For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is highly debateable, simply becuase it has not been proven.

Ok, I'm going to stop right there.  I was just writing about the rest of your argument when it struck me that, while not on any exam I took, it is a wonderful new logic question for the group.  I'll post it in a new topic.

As for the last one Rob, While you may not (and don't have to) accept the law (or theory, if you don't buy it) that "if anything can happen, it has at someplace and sometime", there were two other ways to prove that the arguments statements were true that I named (both by trial and by record).  Since it only has to happen one time and one time only to exist, I think I've made that point.

[Brain]

yea, i read the answers bucc, i jutd tried to roll it all into one little package.

[OoA Rob]

Bucc, seeing how I personally wish to question all sides, I will play devil's advocate, as I've been, so there is questioning that should take place from all side.  While my very first argument has shown a side of my veiws, there is another that needs pure facts.

How about you point out a UFO, and I will try to deffend my argument.  This is a simple way to handle this(remmber if you point out one UFO then, my argument is shot).

If I say it is snowing (because it is outside my window right now) we don't need a law to prove that.  Logic is often used to prove theories enough to make them laws.  

Hehe, you sugesting we just belive you, that there is snow becuase you say you see it.  I can say you might be hallucinating(most likly not, hehe).  So you can't prove there is snow by your sight, your sight could even betray yourself.

Honstly, I belive you;logicly based on pure facts, no.

For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is highly debateable, simply becuase it has not been proven.

Perhaps, I should of said "For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is highly debateable, simply becuase it has not been proven enough to become a law, as it remains a theory"  probably would of been a better statement.

there were two other ways to prove that the arguments statements were true that I named (both by trial and by record).  Since it only has to happen one time and one time only to exist, I think I've made that point.

Please, bombard me with these trials and records.  As I have said above, pointing out instance of UFOs may be the best solution to be used to conclued.  And yes, it only takes one UFO to show existance of UFO(s)(logicaly enough ).  But, my side will be hardest to defend, obviously.  foolish me for picking the hard side .

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hehe, you sugesting we just belive you, that there is snow becuase you say you see it.  I can say you might be hallucinating(most likly not, hehe).  So you can't prove there is snow by your sight, your sight could even betray yourself.

Honstly, I belive you;logicly based on pure facts, no.

Actually, yes, obeservation still counts as a fact.  You can challenge that fact, just like any other.  If you had challenged it, I could then take a picture, or provide others that observed it.  Or, I could steer you to third party reports, like the local weather, that would verify that fact.  It is still a fact.  All you can do is challenge it if you don't believe it.  (Observations without conclusions are different from Opinions.  Opinions are not fact, they are conclusions.  That is a HUGE difference).

Perhaps, I should of said "For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is highly debateable, simply becuase it has not been proven enough to become a law, as it remains a theory"  probably would of been a better statement.

Nope.  It's not better and you'll see why in the other thread.  But let's give others the chance to chime in on it.

Please, bombard me with these trials and records.  As I have said above, pointing out instance of UFOs may be the best solution to be used to conclued.  And yes, it only takes one UFO to show existance of UFO(s)(logicaly enough ).  But, my side will be hardest to defend, obviously.  foolish me for picking the hard side .

For evidence, I'll just include a link or two, of official government documents that had to be released in the name of the "Freedom of Information Act".  This first one shows a report of objects flying, changing direction and speed, shown both by radar and human observation.  Near the bottom you will notice the words "unidentified objects".  

This second tidbit is the executive summary (first page) of Project Blue Book.  You'll notice that they even define what a UFO is (very complete of them).  You can go on and read all the actual reports in there.  Notice they still have the category "unidentified" even after their investigations, meaning in some cases, they still didn't know what it was.

[Who Knows?]

 

Bucc's Logic test

1.  Yes
2.  I said so.

What I get?

 

My logic question:

Five friends have access to a chat room.  Is it possible to determine who is chatting if the following info is known? Either Kevin or Heather, or both, are chatting.  Either Randy or Vijay, but not both. are chatting.  If Abby is chatting, so is Randy.  Vijay and Kevin are either both chatting or neither is.  If Heather is chatting then so are Abby and Kevin.  Explain Reasoning.

 

[OoA Rob]

Actually, yes, obeservation still counts as a fact.  You can challenge that fact, just like any other.  If you had challenged it, I could then take a picture, or provide others that observed it.  Or, I could steer you to third party reports, like the local weather, that would verify that fact.  It is still a fact.  All you can do is challenge it if you don't believe it.  (Observations without conclusions are different from Opinions.  Opinions are not fact, they are conclusions.  That is a HUGE difference).

Ok, so we are at "right untill questioned wrong".  Niether of our sides has proved the other wrong, yet.  So are both sides right still? On a side note, is this how we must disprove a conclusion? with questions?

I do think I challenged your fact, but now I will clearly challenge it.  
What makes your fact true? And why?

Nope.  It's not better and you'll see why in the other thread.  But let's give others the chance to chime in on it.

I do think my startement was better, just didn't float your boat .  I think I see your point though.  If I took "highly" out it would be a even better sentance.  But the theory of evolution has not become a law yet.  Why is that?  Perhaps some higher level thinkers are at confict with it, from spoted holes in the argument.  But we do know there is a reason why is not a law.

For the links:

From the start I can claim "there must of been a electronical malfunction, causing the radar system to not work properly".  can you give us the infomation to suport the radar wasn't lying or deceiving?

For the ground witness, do we have blood test at the time this was reported?  They ALL could of been taking drugs, causing these answers.

where are the facts that these people truly reported this and this is not just made up?

How do we know if the SAM sites were hearing the F-106s?
As for "lights in the sky".  There are stars, and other things that can reflect.  the witnesses could of been observing reflecting objects.  Therefore, they clam there were lights in the sky.

I belive the 2nd link just shows the air force is trying to investigate claimed UFOs.

Any other claimed UFOs? I prefer you would be the source of info, rather than a another internet site.  Becuase I will question to the point that the sites can't answer or reply the.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ok, so we are at "right untill questioned wrong".  Niether of our sides has proved the other wrong, yet.  So are both sides right still? On a side note, is this how we must disprove a conclusion? with questions?

I think you missed my point.  A statement that "it is snowing outside my window right now" is a fact (I'm pointing out that facts are not the same as laws).  If you disagree with one of my facts (aka statements) you can challenge it.

There are a few ways to disprove a conclusion.  You can prove the opposite is true, you can point out a hole in the logic (which is one you were attempting before) or you can challenge the validity of the facts.  For example, in the gun thread, I was challenging both the validity of his facts and the soundness of his logic.

Again, another difference is an observation vs an opinion.  Opinions are formed from observations.  Opinions are conclusions.  Saying it's snowing is an observation.  Saying it's too early in the year for snow is an opinion.

I'm still going to leave the Evolution question for the other thread.  I want to give others a chance to talk about it before giving it away Rob.

For the links:

From the start I can claim "there must of been a electronical malfunction, causing the radar system to not work properly".  can you give us the infomation to suport the radar wasn't lying or deceiving?

For the ground witness, do we have blood test at the time this was reported?  They ALL could of been taking drugs, causing these answers.

where are the facts that these people truly reported this and this is not just made up?

How do we know if the SAM sites were hearing the F-106s?
As for "lights in the sky".  There are stars, and other things that can reflect.  the witnesses could of been observing reflecting objects.  Therefore, they clam there were lights in the sky.

In a courtroom, those questions may or may not fly.  In logic they don't.  

I probably didn't explain this well (like I said, I wouldn't make a good teacher).  Challenging a statement isn't just postulating how it could be wrong.  It's showing evidence to the contrary.  If you want to successfully challenge those facts in logic, you have to have something besides personal opinion on why they wouldn't be true.  You start by challenging a statement, which you did.  You asked for evidence, which was shown.  To challenge that, the burden is upon you to show evidence refuting what was shown (not an easy task, especially with a gimmie argument like this).

I belive the 2nd link just shows the air force is trying to investigate claimed UFOs.

Any other claimed UFOs? I prefer you would be the source of info, rather than a another internet site.  Becuase I will question to the point that the sites can't answer or reply the.

Actually, the source of the information was the documentation on Project Blue Book.  If you had gone on past the first page you would have seen actual studies and outcomes.  Some of which remain "unidentified" to the USAF.  The work was sited, and though the size of the document is large (you probably didn't leave the first scanned page, did you?) you can see on the 7th page that out of all the investigations that took place of UFO's, 701 are still classified as UFO.  If you are going to challenge a source, you should read the whole thing first.

[jn.loudnotes]

Five friends have access to a chat room.? Is it possible to determine who is chatting if the following info is known? Either Kevin or Heather, or both, are chatting.? Either Randy or Vijay, but not both. are chatting.? If Abby is chatting, so is Randy.? Vijay and Kevin are either both chatting or neither is.? If Heather is chatting then so are Abby and Kevin.? Explain Reasoning.

It is impossible to determine for certain.

Say for example that Heather is chatting.  Abby must be, and therefore so should Randy.  Kevin must be as well.  Thus Vijay is chatting.  However, Vijay and kevin cannot both be chatting, so we know this is false.

Thus heather is not chatting.  This means that Kevin is chatting.  And thus Vijay is as well.  From this we can determine that Randy is not chatting.  However, there is not way to be certain as to whether Abby is chatting.  Randy is definitely chatting if she is, but he may be whether she is or not.  And simply because she definitely would chat in presence of Heather, doesn't mean she would not otherwise.

So to sum up, here is what can be determined:

Heather - not chatting
Kevin - chatting
Vijay - chatting
Randy - not chatting
Abby - Either