Bucc's Logic Thread

[Bondo]

Don't really know why that was locked...anyways

Bucc, I realize they were two seperate questions...hence my smilie...so I get full credit for the second part.

As for the first, you can't say that the only possible answer is Yes they do exist.  It can be proved either way.

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object
All Objects have an identity
To be unidentified an Object would have to have no identity
Therefore, no object can be unidentified.
Therefore, UFOs don't exist.

That it is flying is meaningless if you can disprove that unidentified objects exist.  And seeing as I've answered in the same number of statements than the "answer" I would get the full point for this part too.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I realize they were two seperate questions...hence my smilie...so I get full credit for the second part.

Nope.  You wouldn't have.  Not only were the instructions specific, but when I read it, there was an assumption written after the smiley.  That's the way they were graded.

As for the first, you can't say that the only possible answer is Yes they do exist.  It can be proved either way.

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object
All Objects have an identity
To be unidentified an Object would have to have no identity
Therefore, no object can be unidentified.
Therefore, UFOs don't exist.

That it is flying is meaningless if you can disprove that unidentified objects exist.  And seeing as I've answered in the same number of statements than the "answer" I would get the full point for this part too.

There are holes in that logic Bondo.

First, identity is subjective.  Your statement that "To be unidentified an Object would have to have no identity" is completely incorrect.  Since identification is up to the observer, and not to self, things can be unidentified.  When someone is annonomous, they are unidentified, when they tell you their name, they are identified.  Even if you say that something has to have an identity to itself, to have self, it would have to be self aware.  Since not all objects are self aware (unless you want to tackle that logical proof) they don't have their identity.  No matter how you slice it, anything can be unidentified, depending on your frame of reference.  

There is an important difference between IDENTITY and IDENTIFIED.  They do not mean the same thing.

Second, your first statement is suspect.  Do things that have yet to be discovered have an identity?  Do elements in science that we haven't given name or properties or behaviors have an identity?  How?  They exist, since we do find them and identify them.  But before being identified, don't they have to be "unidentified"?

Thrid, going back to your second statement, that is more of a premise to be proven, not a statement of fact.  

Fourth, you would be correct that flying wouldn't come into it, if the first parts of that argument were correct.

[Bondo]

But you can approach it from multiple angles...one being a random person, one being from a universal view.  Lets say that the flying object was ice but the guy didn't know...whether he knows it or not, it is still ice...or more specifically H2O below 32?F.  Thus it identified from a universal standpoint...same goes for any object, so there are no unidentified objects.

Here is another one:
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Objects
Flying is impossible due to gravity
Therefore no object can fly
Therefore UFOs do not exist.

Because scientifically, no objects can fly...all are falling due to gravity...they may have lift or propulsion, but they don't "fly".

[(SiX)Ben]

I agree... No clue why it was locked... I'm going to answer it here. In the best way I know how: Laziness!

1) UFO's don't exist

2) I do not believe they do.

Ben

[Flame]

I think it was because Bucc said the answer to it?
Here's my version : 1) UFOs don't exist until I see one. 2) What you see is what you get.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

But you can approach it from multiple angles...one being a random person, one being from a universal view.  Lets say that the flying object was ice but the guy didn't know...whether he knows it or not, it is still ice...or more specifically H2O below 32?F.  Thus it identified from a universal standpoint...

There is the hole again.

You went from being unidentifed to a leap and identifing it.  Where did that leap come from?

If the guy doesn't know, to him it is unidentified.  Since that establishes that something CAN at sometime be UNIDENTIFIED, something can exist and be unidentified.

Again, you are trying to play word games, they don't work in logic.  Identity and Identify mean two different things.  Their meaning is important.

Here is another one:
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Objects
Flying is impossible due to gravity
Therefore no object can fly
Therefore UFOs do not exist.

Because scientifically, no objects can fly...all are falling due to gravity...they may have lift or propulsion, but they don't "fly".

You are trying to get trickey with word games again Bondo, and that doesn't work.  Your statement that "flying is impossible due to gravity" is not a true statement.  You need to look up the definition of "fly" maybe.  

Word games don't belong in proofs.  Your argument is still flawed.  Flying is possible.  Things can go unidentified.  It's a sinking ship Bondo, get off now.

[OoA Rob]

no Bondo, their is only one answer.  it would be, yes they exist.  untill, proved other wise.

time for questioning...

do we know all the possible objects? if not, then there remains some unidentified objects. say, if one person can't identify one object, there remains a unidentified object, to that person.
if, objects aquire a knowlege base of identities then would each item/person/thing retain these identities?

to say that, there are no UFOs, you would have to conluced, everyone knows everything.

does EVERYONE  know ALL the objects in space? after all, i'm sure we are discovering many new objects. aren't there gravitational pulls acting on everything, creating a active flight.

bah, although i didn't directly answer question 2. i don't like the answer. i don't think you need to say "why not".  I KNOW! maybe i need to get some sleep.  i'm questing everything... i need to stop.  i do feel like i can argue both ways now... but it would take research in scientific laws, the bottom line is you can only use laws.  theorys don't work.

[Bondo]

Like I said, it depends on the angle you view it from...that is why it can be argued more than one way.  It can be logical that UFOs exist...or that they don't.  Like I've said before, logic is just the process, not a correct answer.

[OoA Rob]

Like I said, it depends on the angle you view it from...that is why it can be argued more than one way.  It can be logical that UFOs exist...or that they don't.  Like I've said before, logic is just the process, not a correct answer.

Bondo the idea of logic is questioning all sides, untill you come to a concluson.  Although, i don't see Bondo's logic.

[Jeb]

it would be intresting to logicaly analyse if God exsists. then again, i don't see much logical proof that a mythical supreme being made the universe.

[OoA Rob]

i do belive there was a philosopher that came to a logical conclusion that the universe was a miracle, in other words there has to of been a greater power to have been created.  But, from my knowlege he was a crazy guy.  he tried to create mathematical equations with his name and link it to jesus to prove that he was like some great guy or some crap.  anyways, i do remmber that he had great reasons to belive that there is a outsided force aka god.

[|MP|Cringe]

Bucc, it is called Unidentfied b/c we know its a flying object, but exactly what kind of object, is unknown, wether its a balloon, space debris, or a piece of the us military

[tasty]

For those of you that want to read a logical proof on the existence on God, read Descartes' Meditations, specifically Meditations #1-6. Personally, I don't buy his reasoning, but it IS logical and my philosophy professor who is a noted epistemologist believes in it completely. Anyway, Descartes makes both ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of god in those six meditations.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The logic behind if God exists pretty much get's caught up on two things.  On the pro side, faith can't be a fact.  On the con side, there is also no way to explain many things in the universe.  In other words, you can't really prove either side with existing knowledge.

Bondo, you just opened up that logic trap even wider.  You just said that it depends on how you look at it.  Guess what, it doesn't.  When you view it from every angle, there are cases when object are unidentified.  There was no stipulation that we are omniscient, and thus can identify everything.  That is exactly what I was getting at before.  Logic doesn't work when you used false statements as true.  You can't use a lie in logic.  Since we aren't omniscient, things do go unidentified.  Things also fly.  It's a simple argument that does have a very correct answer.  

The problem is that you are trying to change the conditions in order to make your answer fit.  Much the same thing you did in the gun ban debate.  In our universe, it is a fact that objects go unidentified.

[Brain]

so just out of curiosity, where did i lose points? i had the same basic idea as the answer, but i'd like to know were i went wrong

[Jeb]

Religion as a whole is worthless to me. Look back thru out history and you will see that every major civilization had a religion simply because people have questions that can't be answered (like wtf am i doing hear, why do my feet stink, ect.). Old Religions, like the greek gods have the same relivance to modern christianity simply because all religion, or faith does is reasure us that there is a answer to our questions.
jesus is a whole other story. I'd  recon that he did indeed exsist. however the first record of his exsistance (gospel of mark) was written 66-70 years after he died. the only problem with this is that the writers of the gospels didn't even know him, leaving plenty of room for overexageration as the story of jesus was passed down after his death. If jesus was the true son of god i'd asume that most people would have acepted him, but no the Jews didn't belive him nor the romans. There is quite a bit of doubt surounding jesus' life and who he truely was.

essentialy no one knows what created us (with solid evidence), not me, not you. I"ll acept any religion anyone has, and i thinkt hat religion gives people something to do, and ways to help the community. I however am firmly against any form of christian influence in schools or in the government.

i'm getting tired of typing this, but maybe i'll type some more if someone challenges me (bucc   )
and a little note about me, i was raised catholic, went to chuch almost every sunday, i've gone to catholic prep school for 15 years, and i never questioned god untill i was writing a term paper for a religioin class 2 years back.

[Oso]

Like I said, it depends on the angle you view it from...that is why it can be argued more than one way.  It can be logical that UFOs exist...or that they don't.  Like I've said before, logic is just the process, not a correct answer.

bondo the question clearly ask "do ufo's exist?"

if you say that it CAN be logical that UFO's exist, then there you go, end your arguement there cuz you just answer it, they do. you wont get around it anyother way by saying "well it depends on the view",understand that if it works in one way, then it is true or in this case, exist.

thats like saying , for example, "do stinky feet exist?"

to some people they stink, to some people they dont. but if one person believes they stink, then stinky feet must exist.

i really hope what i said made sense, cuz i can be very unclear at sometimes.. or most times...

[OoA Rob]

i just want to question the professors logic.

Question 1: Do UFO's really exist?
Proof:
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object
Objects exist
Objects can fly
Objects can be unidentified
Therefore: UFO's do exist

this can be trranslated to:
1.objects exist
2.some objects fly(not all fly)
3.some objects are not identified(not all are unidentified)
therefore,some objects fly, and some objects are not identified(doesn't mean there are objects both flying and unidentified at the same time).
this argument is true. the conclusion is false.
just becuase a object can take 2 actions, does not mean they can do both at the same time.  there is a differenace in "can", and "do".
1.objects can fly
2.objects can not fly

1.objects can unidentified
2.objects can be identified
showing that 2 actions can happen, doesn't imply they happen at the same time.

i see 3 possible answers.  i rest at you can not prove UFOs do or don't exist.

i hope this makes sence...

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Although sometimes I wonder like who was before my mom and then before that person back to like animals and then trees and then leaves and then ya know whos farther back there has to be something but then again if there is anything out there never in our live times will we see it for I doubt theres anything in hte Milky Way and you wont be able to exit that by the time we die.

[OoA Rob]

i'm sorry, i don't understand what you said, zait.  its to hard for me to follow through your post with one period; its hard to distinguish ideas if lacking the proper grammer.

zait, i recommend for you to learn grammer.  in college, i am learning what i missed in grade school, which is grammer. i was a slacker.