Hmm...
I havent thought about it, and it makes sence to me when commentators say 'logical', so i think its fine peaple use that word.
The Spock Fallacy
Sort:
SeirupDK wrote:
Hmm...
I havent thought about it, and it makes sence to me when commentators say 'logical', so i think its fine peaple use that word.
Fair enough, but the use of a word that is not connected to its actual meaning is a fallacy, is it not?
ErrantDeeds wrote:
It may also be the case that I am a very pedantic man.
ED.
Yes, you are. But that's cool too. :)
rooperi wrote:
ErrantDeeds wrote:
It may also be the case that I am a very pedantic man.
ED.
Yes, you are. But that's cool too. :)
Ha! Being pedantic is a hobby of mine :)
It often refers to what has gone on previously in the game.
For example, if a player finachettos his bishop but then later blocks off that diagonal with a pawn move, it might be described as "illogical" because it seems to hinder his plan.
As a newb chess heathen who plays based on emotion and intuition I find your argument logical.
-waller- wrote:
It often refers to what has gone on previously in the game.
For example, if a player finachettos his bishop but then later blocks off that diagonal with a pawn move, it might be described as "illogical" because it seems to hinder his plan.
Interesting. In this case, the player has provided the refutation of his own argument.
jcncc wrote:
As a newb chess heathen who plays based on emotion and intuition I find your argument logical.
Then my work here is done :)
Jul 27, 2014
0
#10
Explore Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations of Chess960.
Enroll today.
I don't need to remind the OP that Spock was half Vulcan and half human. Now Mr Data is a WHOLE different animal.
-waller- wrote:
It often refers to what has gone on previously in the game.
For example, if a player finachettos his bishop but then later blocks off that diagonal with a pawn move, it might be described as "illogical" because it seems to hinder his plan.
While what you say is often the case--it is not always the case-there are exceptions.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
I don't need to remind the OP that Spock was half Vulcan and half human. Now Mr Data is a WHOLE different animal.
I was saying to my sister the other day that "Star Trek Next Generation" copied ""Star Trek". They both had Data/Spock saying: ' "how will playing my cards right" help in situation x Captain ?'. So from the point of view of showing how two rational beings can be misled by a idiomatic language, they do share a commonality...
There are so many things wrong with your argument about the 2 moves played that I don't even want to start.
AGREED, but Data was a machine who wanted to be a human. Spock was a human who had no trouble being a machine.
What is in error is the initial data of the colour of people from France.
What is in error with your diagram is the initial data that "Rooks belong on open files" is the logical argument present. The actual present arguments are "Don't lose material" and "Deprive knights of their support points" which, as you demonstrate, take precedence over your "logical" argument.
ErrantDeeds wrote:
You know what really bugs me? The use of the word “Logic” or “Logical” when describing a move played in chess by annotations and commentators. The word has entered parlance in a seemingly specific but fuzzy sense; often a move is described as “logical” when it accomplishes a first-principals goal, such as getting a rook on an open file, or as step two or three of some tactical operation. This is an example of a word developing a critical mass of cliché in a given setting, and has no relation to the actual meaning of the word logic.
Logic is the art of reasoning and argument. More specifically, it is the argument itself. All of chess can be described as an act of logic, with both sides countering their opponent with stronger ‘proofs’ of a specific ‘argument’. Calling a move ‘logical’ is flawed, as the logic is the argument behind the move, which, depending on the ability of the player/computer, takes the logical form of an elaborate if/then/else tree. Logic itself is neutral to the positive/negative or true/untrue outcomes of the argument. For example, take the following statement:
“Everyone from France is purple. Tom is from France, therefore, Tom is purple”.
There’s nothing wrong with the logic of the above statement. What is in error is the initial data of the colour of people from France. If your initial data on the chessboard is flawed, say, you miss a tactic threatening you with material loss, and play a ‘logical’ move, then your ‘argument’ will be disproved:
All chess moves, in essence, are logical, in that they are operators based on an argument. If the argument is flawed, the move will be bad. Describing a chess move as “logical”, when what is meant is “Good” or “Sensible” is therefore a fallacy. I shall call it The Spock Fallacy, in honour of that famous Vulcan, who, in an attempt to make him seem cerebral, was given to describing what was merely sensible as “Logical”, to the point where it became a hackneyed catchphrase.
It may also be the case that I am a very pedantic man.
ED.
"Logic" along with "great" words that are over used, and not even used correctly.
"
It may also be the case that I am a very pedantic man.
ED. "
Lawls.
Jul 28, 2014
0
#19
As with most words,"logical" has more than one meaning. One is to act according to the rules of formal argument, but the second is more general and liberal - to act in a reasonable or rational fashion. So, to call a move logical may not adhere to the first, stricter definition, but if is adheres to the second, gentler definition, I don't see anything wrong with the usage.
You know what really bugs me? The use of the word “Logic” or “Logical” when describing a move played in chess by annotations and commentators. The word has entered parlance in a seemingly specific but fuzzy sense; often a move is described as “logical” when it accomplishes a first-principals goal, such as getting a rook on an open file, or as step two or three of some tactical operation. This is an example of a word developing a critical mass of cliché in a given setting, and has no relation to the actual meaning of the word logic.
Logic is the art of reasoning and argument. More specifically, it is the argument itself. All of chess can be described as an act of logic, with both sides countering their opponent with stronger ‘proofs’ of a specific ‘argument’. Calling a move ‘logical’ is flawed, as the logic is the argument behind the move, which, depending on the ability of the player/computer, takes the logical form of an elaborate if/then/else tree. Logic itself is neutral to the positive/negative or true/untrue outcomes of the argument. For example, take the following statement:
“Everyone from France is purple. Tom is from France, therefore, Tom is purple”.
There’s nothing wrong with the logic of the above statement. What is in error is the initial data of the colour of people from France. If your initial data on the chessboard is flawed, say, you miss a tactic threatening you with material loss, and play a ‘logical’ move, then your ‘argument’ will be disproved:
All chess moves, in essence, are logical, in that they are operators based on an argument. If the argument is flawed, the move will be bad. Describing a chess move as “logical”, when what is meant is “Good” or “Sensible” is therefore a fallacy. I shall call it The Spock Fallacy, in honour of that famous Vulcan, who, in an attempt to make him seem cerebral, was given to describing what was merely sensible as “Logical”, to the point where it became a hackneyed catchphrase.
It may also be the case that I am a very pedantic man.
ED.