All ideas are equally valid and logical.
Allow me to justify.
An idea only seems complicated to some because their preconceived knowledge before hearing the idea was different or less than the person who came up with this idea.
Allow me to explain.
If I were trying to explain an idea I had about music to a person who had no knowledge or experience of the such, they would not be able to follow my reasoning to explain a very logical step, for me, from my preconceived knowledge to my epiphany. The more I tried to explain, the more terms that they did now know would have to be used, and the more they would have to learn in an instant and they more confused they would get. They would be so focused on the new ideas I have presented already, that the simple focus idea would make no sense to them. To a person with similar or superior preconceived knowledge of music to mine, would be able to understand my logic without any explaining on my part. I would just say "Oh man, I JUST realized that a C# minor chord is the same as a Db minor chord!" and it would be instantly understood and i would possibly even be ridiculed for the obvious nature of the fact.
This being said, it is just as equal a step of logic to go from C# minor chord is the same as Db minor chord as it is for a four year old to realize that sentences start with a capital letter. Perhaps it is not on the same level of knowledge, as measured by what should be known in our society early on, but the interval between the state of knowledge before the idea and the idea itself is equal with these two instances.
In fact, an idea is still just as logical, and therefore justifiably valid under the circumstances, even if the ending idea is accepted false under common knowledge. In other words, it is not the person's fault they came to this wrong thought. If you obtained the same preconceived knowledge as them, it is probable you would come to the same conclusion from the given pieces of information.
One thought leads to the next. You start as a baby and you gradually learn. A baby doesn't have ideas about quantum theory, and nor does a quantum theorist learn what a spoon is. But under the circumstances, the two new pieces of knowledge are equally difficult and logical to go from one idea to the next in finding out facts of the universe.
There are exceptions, of course, to my original statement. There are some who guess outlandish hypothesis and then try to prove these things: causing them to work backwards from the idea and thus not following a completely logical and equal jump of logic compared to someone else before making that outlandish hypothesis. But still yet, even in that instance, there must have been something logical which triggered this idea, some wide variety of preconceived knowledge which was not present in any other person to have this seemingly impossible idea. Therefore, ideas are always logical.
Even if one claims or is a assumed to be being completely random, they really are not. It is completely logical and it only takes a similar preconceived knowledge database or a high intellect to follow the flow of thought from one idea to the next.
This is how groups of people can have conversations that you cannot follow. They have had an experience in their lives that was similar, or had an experience that was had together. This means that between ideas expressed with speech, the same amount of thought is mutually and automatically inferred and interpreted, so that the next idea expressed, by the same individual or another, does not seem random at all. This is what people call being "on the same brainwaves". In a literal sense, it is actually partially true. Granted, it would be difficult to find someone who always thinks the same things as you, always, in the exact fashion; and you can't take that phrase to mean you are sharing the same wave (but creating similar ones); also I am not entirely sure if a "wave" is an accurate scientific way to describe ideas; but as I said, in a partial almost possible literal sense, it is true.
In conclusion, my hypothesis is that all ideas everyone has, at any time, in all history, false or true, with no regard to the sophistication of content, are all equally justified and logical to be thought, and all made with the same amount of logical thinking.
5 comments:
I agree that conversations are based on common background knowledge, so it can be impossible for outsiders to follow. I even agree that ideas are made out of memories and previous knowledge.
But why equally logical? When did you figure out how to measure logic? Are you just trying to say that people work equally hard on their ideas? If I'm just phoning it in and not really trying on my homework, do I come up with an answer that is just as good as if I'd concentrated? No. The crappy answer is likely to be illogical because I just wrote down loosely related words.
"Napolean won the battle because he ate a good breakfast that morning." I just completely made that up. It doesn't even specify which battle. So this is super low on logic. I would not want this to be put into a history book.
This is great point Vezquex! But please hear me out in this.
I usually rely on the basis that in most cases, people's ideas are meant to be sincere and not purposefully bullshitting something nearly nonsensical.
Although, your statement about Napolean is very logical in fact. Why do people accomplish fantastic things sometimes? Well, obviously according to this person's previous knowledge, they know that sometimes having a good breakfast helps. Just because it is false and known to be incorrect by this person, it does not mean it was any less logical.
A correct answer of this question would not be achieved by one step in logic. To find a correct answer to this question one would have to look at various different texts and possibly not even derive any new conclusions on their own.
That is, a correct answer would not even demonstrate the answerer having any ideas at all, but regurgitating the same ideas said in their textbook, perhaps even in the exact phrasing. If they did conclude something on their own, perhaps another factor in the battle not mentioned in the book which then tied into the answer, then it would be at the same logic of what the false answer required.
Logic is not determined by correctness. Logic is not always correct. Just because an answer is correct does not mean there was any more logic put into it, only a better form of logic.
Intelligence is determined by the application of your logic, which is determined by your experiences and previous ideas. The more correct your ending answer is, the better your logic is in most cases. At least in my opinion.
It would definitely not be put in a textbook because logic does not equal intelligence or correctness of answer. Logic is logic. There is no way to measure it, therefore it is all as good as equal.
thx for the comment =)
If I am reading you correctly. perhaps you are getting at something I often think: What people say is true for them. Even when they say THE OPPOSITE of what they believe to be true, it is a way of exploring what they feel to be true through playing with the inverse of it.
If Vezquex says that Napoleon's success was due to regular consumption of Wheaties with a picture Michael Phelps on the box, it is obviously an exploration of cultural maxims about breakfast being "the most important meal of the day." All ideas have value, but in some, the value lies mainly in their ridiculousness.
That is part of it, yes. If what someone says is true for them, then how they arrived at that true answer, for them, must be logical, at least to them, or they would not believe it.
I appreciate your views on the idea, even though I have different views about idea whether logically equivalence or not. Blog tips
Post a Comment