Since you cannot prove that errors in reasoning do not undermine all logical thought, then they must undermine it, correct?

[on_my_knees]

For example, if I falsely conclude that I am a squirrel because I am mortal, I still cannot prove that I have undermined all logical thought. Simply put, logical though will still exist even though I believe that I am a squirrel. Therefore my error in thinking undermined logical thought?

[purplepoppy]

That nice Mr Biden has just claimed he's proud to be a black woman https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/05/biden-first-black-woman-serve-with-black-president/

Now while he's wrong about serving does that disprove he's not a black woman? I think not. Why can't he be a black woman? It's only your racism and narrow minded views on gender that cloud your logic. Just because he has the odd slip up it doesn't mean he's a white old man, it proves he's a black woman. Fact.

[on_my_knees]

Let's start with proving that the error in reasoning does not undermine all logical thought.

[on_my_knees]

Wait, I think I see what you mean. The question assumes that because there is no proof against the claim, then the claim must be true. So clearly, errors in reasoning do not undermine logical thought. In the same sense, Joe Biden is a black woman.

[Mach40]

Errors in reasoning, such as falsely concluding "I am a squirrel because I am mortal," do not undermine all of logical thought in a global sense. While such mistakes can affect specific instances of reasoning, the discipline of logic remains intact and robust. Logical thought operates on principles of consistency and validity, where errors are identified and corrected without invalidating the entire framework. Think of it like science: incorrect hypotheses don't disprove the scientific method itself but rather highlight areas needing refinement. Similarly, logic persists as a structured approach to reasoning despite occasional errors, maintaining its fundamental integrity across correct applications.

[on_my_knees]

My Mistress would pull down your pants and whip you for this verbosity that fails to answer the actual question. I'm not asking whether errors in reasoning undermine all logical thought. Stand in the corner with nipple clamps affixed to your pathetic nipples and answer the question: since you cannot prove that errors in reasoning do not undermine all logical thought, then they must undermine it.

[Mach40]

I get what you're saying now. You're asking if errors in reasoning automatically mess up all logic. Well, just because we can't prove errors won't mess up everything doesn't mean they definitely will. Think of it like this, when we make mistakes in thinking, they affect specific things we're trying to figure out, but they don't wreck the whole idea of logic. Logic keeps going strong because we learn from mistakes and fix them, keeping everything on track.

[Mach40]

Imagine you're learning math in school. Sometimes, you might make a mistake in solving a problem, like adding numbers incorrectly. That mistake doesn't mean all math is wrong or impossible, it just means you need to correct that specific error. Similarly, errors in reasoning are like those mistakes. They might mess up a specific idea or conclusion, but they don't mean logic itself doesn't work. Just like in school, where you learn from mistakes to get better at math, in logic, we learn from errors to improve our reasoning.

[OhLongJohnsoning]

I think, therefore I am

[on_my_knees]

I suppose when you feel, you don't exist. Maybe answer the actual question.

[OhLongJohnsoning]

I did