TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is a purely logical debate possible?

Is it possible to have a debate with absolutely no emotion and using only logic? I cant imagine it being possible because even if you craft a perfectly logical argument and remove your own emotion your listeners will still receive and analyze it in light of their own emotions. As a subquestion what emotions do you think predominate debate? I would say anger and fear. Would it be possible to change that? I'm thinking of this especially in light of persuasive debate, when you want someone to do something for you.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 5 2013: We are not logical creatures. What seems logical to me seems like nonsense to others, and vice-versa.

    • Sep 6 2013: I like your phrasing...
      what is logical to one
      is illogical to others
      what is obvious to one
      is not obvious to others

      where is truth to be found?
      • thumb

        . . 100+

        • +1
        Sep 6 2013: Deep inside........in the heart part of the mind.....
      • thumb
        Sep 6 2013: Hi Scott.
        I am a Christian, that became logical to me after I was obliged to check it out. Prior to this I just dismissed it on reputation (false as it turned out).
        We can look at things logically, but we have to be pretty surgical in removing our prejudice in whatever subject we are studying. Then we can stick to known facts, although our conclusions will normally be an opinion based on these facts. It is all too easy to take the route of trusting 'experts'; that usually means accepting their prejudice. What we really need are the facts that have led them to their conclusion.
        So we can have what appears to be a logical debate, but usually only with others with the same prejudice.
        Having said that; the Truth is out there. Just tackle the candidates logically, without prejudice, and the Truth should be obvious.

        • Sep 6 2013: I enjoyed your remarks. You've made some good points. Your comments on truth reminded me of something I read a while back. Something like.....

          "We swim in Truth like fish swim in water. It need not be sought for we're In It. Seek only those things Within that veil Our View of Truth. Those things that limit Perceptions. Truth cannot be found. It must uncovered from Within"

          Have a great weekend!
        • Sep 6 2013: To claim that Christianity is a logical outcome of consideration of the relevant facts is to offer the mother of all non sequitur debates and posit it as founded on logic, in which case, we may conclude that your use of the word logic is (with all due respect) deeply flawed. A religion that relies on evidence of attributed revelation to historical unwitnessed characters we never met, and know nothing of, is so far from logic as to be ludicrous. I offer you a prophet ostensibly spoken to by his donkey, a man who lived in a big fish, 3 men who survived in a furnace, a man who remained unharmed in a den of wild lions, a city whose walls fell down at the blast of trumpets, a spinning chariot, a temporarily receding sea, the appearance of angels at odd times, a virgin birth and much else that defies any known logic except the most extremely irrational misunderstanding of the word. I wouldn't know where logic can be used to verify Noah's gathering of billions of fertile pairs of globally distributed animals and plants, let alone how his vessel might have held, fed and preserved them, leave alone perfectly replace them into flood-destroyed environments to thrive. Whatever arguments you may offer - and I've heard them all - logic bares no relation to religion whatsoever, and, nothing personal, but merely asserting it does based on your personally constructed redefinition of what we mean by logic doesn't cut it. If you mean it became obvious or convincing or appealing to you as a theory of existence; granted, it may have, (any faithful Muslim or Hindu might argue likewise), but where is the logic we are considering in any of that? Logic isn't whatever you want it to be; it is the branch of philosophy concerned with inference. You are not referring to logic, but to argument, or intuition or somesuch.
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2013: @Trevor
        Certainly got you animated anyway. One man's logic is another man's foolishness, that's how it is.

      • thumb
        Sep 7 2013: I agree Scott. Truth is all around us, we get blinded to it by our own perceptions.

      • thumb
        Sep 12 2013: What is the truth? The truth is that your name is Scott Bell.

        There is no absolute abstract Truth. The truth is always very concrete and specific to concrete situations.

        If somebody has some opinion about some phenomenon --> this is a truth about his opinion.
        If somebody has another opinion about the same phenomenon --> this is a truth about his opinion.

        But how somebody can recognize which of two opinions is true? The practice is the criteria. The truth is measured by the ability to forecast the behavior of the phenomenon for achievement of some goals.

        And actually it is better to use word "effective". And to not use word "true". If one estimates somebody's opinion or decision, it is better to say "this is effective or not effective for such and such goals". Same solution can have different effectiveness for different goals. There are no true solutions, but effective or not effective.

        There is no abstract truth. Truth is always very concrete and relates to our true goals.

        What is the true goals?
        The true goals are not what the person says to other or to himself. The true goals are the estimation of what person really does with his real actions. The same actions can be estimated with different goals. This estimation is always subjective. This estimation is not true or not true. The estimation is effective or not effective. Can you effectively estimate your own true goals?

        Quite different questions is what is the right goals? The matter is that the effectiveness of all goals is measured against other goals of higher order. Thus we come to the question: is there right goals? I mean the goals of some highest order, against which we estimate effectiveness of all other goals, decisions and actions. Also could be called the concept of my life

        But answer on this question completely relates to concrete worldview of each particular person. This is why I believe that it is impossible to have a constructive debate without effective understanding of somebody's worldview

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.