Are you logical?

[sacrelicious]

here's an interesting logic test I just found: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/logic_task.htm

I got 3 out of 4 right. I don't feel so bad, cause the one I got wrong had only been answered correctly by 17% of the participants.

also, in the past I have posted a link to another test from the same site ( http://www.philosophers.co.uk ) to other message boards I have frequented. it is called "Battleground God", and it tests whether your particular religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are logically consistant. it's quite a lot of fun so I figured I'd see how you guys fare on it. since the other boards on which I've posted it are literature based, it might be interesting to see how science buffs compare. here it is: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

I took one hit and bit one bullet the first time I played (that will make sense to you once you read the instructions). for the record I am an athiest, but I've known some religious people to have gotten the same score as me, so it seems pretty balanced.

[nebularain]

On 2003-02-06 16:35, sacrelicious wrote:
also, in the past I have posted a link to another test from the same site ( http://www.philosophers.co.uk ) to other message boards I have frequented. it is called "Battleground God", and it tests whether your particular religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are logically consistant. it's quite a lot of fun so I figured I'd see how you guys fare on it. since the other boards on which I've posted it are literature based, it might be interesting to see how science buffs compare. here it is: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Well, first of all, this has nothing to do with astronomy, but I guess it can fly because it could be considered to have some scientific merit.

Second, I can see why you like this test! The wording of the questions set you up to fail!!! I don't have the time to go into details of this, and I am sure no one wants another religious debate on this board. I found myself not feeling compfortable with answering either "yes" or "no" because of the way the questions were worded. When it got to calling God a "she" there was no way I could answer the question truthfully, because even if i believed the statement and answered "yes," I'd be lying because I was agreeing that God is female.

I'm not falling for that trap. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]

[sacrelicious]

On 2003-02-06 17:53, nebularain wrote:

Well, first of all, this has nothing to do with astronomy, but I guess it can fly because it could be considered to have some scientific merit.

Second, I can see why you like this test! The wording of the questions set you up to fail!!! I don't have the time to go into details of this, and I am sure no one wants another religious debate on this board. I found myself not feeling compfortable with answering either "yes" or "no" because of the way the questions were worded. When it got to calling God a "she" there was no way I could answer the question truthfully, because even if i believed the statement and answered "yes," I'd be lying because I was agreeing that God is female.

I'm not falling for that trap. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]

regarding the second quiz, I assume?

I'll grant you that there is one question that is confusingly worded, but the rest are as clear as they can be if you read them and the instructions carefully.

the goal of posting that second test was not to start any religious debate, and as a matter of fact it has never start such a debate on any of the message boards that I have posted it on in the past. any debates that that it has started have been on the merits of the test itself, particularly the confusingly worded question. but all in all it has been well recieved (otherwise I would not have posted it here). I posted it here for two reasons, and only two reasons:

1) it is a stimulating intellectual excersize that I thought peopel here would enjoy as much as the lit junkies who I've presented it to in the past, and...

2) I am interested in your takes on it as compared with the aforementioned lit junkies. I hypothesized that you would do better than their average.

as for being off-topic, I apologize. as you know, I am new here, so I wasn't sure where I should post something like these two logic tests. as a result I chose this section based on the fact that it seemed to have the least strict criteria of all the forums (the equivilant of the obligatory misc. section found under various names on every other board on the internet).

I just figured that logic problems would be of interest to the science buffs here. if I am mistaken in that assumption, then I fear for the health of the scientiffic community in this day and age.

[Saracom]

I took that test, too, and found that some of the questions definitely could have been worded a little better. I appreciate what it was trying to do, though. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Logic Tests are stimulating to me! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saracom on 2003-02-06 23:42 ]</font>

[nebularain]

Woah, woah, woah! First, I said: ". . . but I guess it can fly because it could be considered to have some scientific merit." Please don't think I am discounting that with the logic quiz! Actually, I thought that was quite clever. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

About the religon quiz being set up for failure, I decided to show you what I mean:

It asks:
"If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality."

OK, where do I believe morality comes from? God's nature and character, of course! I answer, "Yes!"

Later it asks:
"Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything."

Well, if I believe God is omnipotent, and omnipotent means "all powerful," then I must believe that God is all powerful, and therefore I must answer "yes" to this question. (After all, what would I be saying if I answered, "No"?)

Later it is asks:
"If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful."

Now, what am I supposed to do with this question? Aside from the "she" mess (hey, if God were female, it wouldn't be us women who were stuck with PMS and all that goes with it!! Hee! Hee!), I see some people are taking liberties with the concept of "omnipotent." Am I supposed to believe that God can act in a fashion against His character? Give me a break! If I believe in a God who is just and merciful, who says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...," who died a horrible and painful death to take the penalty for my sin and the sin of all who would receive it - how can I in good conscience claim agreement to this statement? I have to answer "No!"

So what does the test tell me for answering "No"?

You've just taken a direct hit!

You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

You see, the test is a complete trap!! If God were to change the rules, then He could no longer be considered just or good. If I believe morality is based on who He is, then for Him to change morality means that He changed. But the words of my faith claim that "God changes not!" They also say, "God cannot lie." If I had answered "yes" to the question, I would have completely gone against my belief in God and who He is. Answering "yes" to me is akin to answering "yes" to the question, "Can a leopard change its spots?" But the test will not allow me to answer "No" and remain "healthy." What a load of cow pies!

Something to think about:

"The righteousness His righteousness requires is the righteousness His righteousness requires Him to require."

**
This is what I meant about starting a religious debate. Out of respect for the BA, I did not want to make statements that I know will attract the flock of God vs. no-God flurry that have hijacked other threads. Unfortunately, I know not how else to explain to you what I meant about the test being set up for failure. These are lawyer tactics - manipulating the questions to turn to evidence in your favor.

This is my critical analysis of the data.

My appologies to those reading this who had no desire to be given a theological discourse. I have made my case, and I shall not be returning to this thread, because I want to respect the BA's rules to this board, and I fear I have trampled too near, if not over, the edge. So if anyone wants to debate or rebuke me on what I said, please send me a private message or e-mail. If you have the need to counter-argue what I said to the viewers of this board, then that is between you and how far you believe you can stay within the confines of the Board FAQ's.

[ToSeek]

On 2003-02-06 16:35, sacrelicious wrote:
here's an interesting logic test I just found: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/logic_task.htm

I got 3 out of 4 right. I don't feel so bad, cause the one I got wrong had only been answered correctly by 17% of the participants.

I went 4-for-4, though perhaps I cheated a little bit. I answered the first one only half-correctly, then got the full answer for the second one. Realizing that the questions were fundamentally the same, I went back and corrected myself on the first one. After that, I recognized the pattern, and the rest was easy.

[Nanoda]

It did require some thought, but most (if not all) Comp. Sci. programs require a class that includes symbolic logic, and suggest other logic courses as well, so I've had some experience. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

As a matter of interest, have many people here taken such courses, or researched them independantly?

I wonder what the Lunar Conspiracies forum would have to say. :-/

[xriso]

That logic test was a bit repetitive. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
(by the way, I took the battleground god test a while back and if I recall correctly, I "bit the bullet" twice - once just because I don't believe in evolution. I had no hits.)

[Colt]

I am too tired to take the logic test tonight, will do it tomorrow.

I went through the Battleground test with no hits or anything like that. What does that mean, I am consistently logical? Feh.. Too sleepy.. Night. -Colt

[sacrelicious]

On 2003-02-08 03:53, Colt wrote:
I am too tired to take the logic test tonight, will do it tomorrow.

I went through the Battleground test with no hits or anything like that. What does that mean, I am consistently logical? Feh.. Too sleepy.. Night. -Colt

it doesn't necesarily mean that you are extremely logical, but rather that your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are logically consistant. this means that no one can accuse you of being self-contradictory in those matters.

it also would suggest that you are excellent at thinking everything through to the end, and abandoning notions that just don't add up.

[Irishman]

Took the first test, missed the first two questions, but because I didn't understand the instructions. I think they were worded poorly, as I did not realize on the first set that you had to decide for each card rather than for the set of four cards. I figured it out on the second page and got those two correct, but the first page I missed because I left off one of each.

I took the second test, and I got burned because I disagree with the wording. The wording of one of the questions was ambiguous enough that my interpretation and his interpretation differed. By his interpretation, I had a possible contradiction. By my interpretation, the two questions were compatible.

6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

I said true for 6 and false for 13. This hinges on interpreting "certain, irrevocable proof". I was forced to bite the bullet (or take the hit).

That muddled me enough to muff 14 and contradict myself, taking a bullet. Ouch.

nebularain, I didn't feel the "she" was a setup question, merely the standard ambiguity of the lack of a non-general singular pronoun in English - the "s/he" problem. One fairly standard technique is to alternate using he's and she's. It can be confusing and irritating, but is "preffered" by the PC crowd over opting for all he's. Nobody really likes "he or she" or "s/he". So I didn't blink at that part.

Regarding the second part, I will private message you. I think you missed something, but don't want to start a religious debate on the boards.

[ToSeek]

On 2003-02-08 06:42, Irishman wrote:
I took the second test, and I got burned because I disagree with the wording. The wording of one of the questions was ambiguous enough that my interpretation and his interpretation differed. By his interpretation, I had a possible contradiction. By my interpretation, the two questions were compatible.

6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

I said true for 6 and false for 13. This hinges on interpreting "certain, irrevocable proof". I was forced to bite the bullet (or take the hit).

I think I did the same and didn't take a bullet. Perhaps the contradiction lies elsewhere?

Actually, for a secular humanist like me, it's a pretty easy test. It seems designed more to see if people's notions of God are non-contradictory.

Addendum: I redid the test, answering true for 6 and false for 13, without any problems. Wherever your contradiction is, that's not it. (You will get dinged if you answer "true" to both, though.)


_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2003-02-08 09:31 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

These two got my attention. From the faqs section;


“7. The bullet I've bitten isn't really a bullet.
See our disclaimer at the beginning of the game. You may well be right.”

“15. Is it possible that you've made obvious logical errors, missed get outs, etc., in this test?
Yes, of course it is.”

That’s not the impression they give throughout the rest of the document. Quite the opposite, in fact. They do falter over the wording of a few concepts. There is a difference between believing there is no god and having no belief in god. The first would qualify as a belief, the second would not. Non-belief is not a belief, but an absence of belief. Within this test, they attempted to portray non-belief as if it were a belief.

They falter again here;

“Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in god than for than for belief in evolution.”

The theistic undercurrent of their particular school of philosophy is showing. I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in gravity. Belief is not required. I do grant provisional acceptance for the reality of evolution based upon the preponderance of evidence. This necessitates an occasional revision as new evidence comes to light. Example; gradualism was once viewed as the primary mechanism until evidence for punctuated equilibrium turned up. This doesn’t mean that anyone must choose one mechanism over the other. (gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) Instead, it means that the more robust models for evolution must accommodate both mechanisms. (And they do) This bears repeating; belief is not required.

Intentional or not, a couple of questions come across as “loaded”. Such as;

“Question 3
Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.” And…….

“Question 5
Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.”

So, what yardstick can a non-believer employ to respond to this one? As I have never possessed faith or belief, I am forced to rely on the description which every believer has tendered on the subject throughout my life. The most popular response to these questions would be “true”. Then there’s #12.

“Question 12
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.”

Again, how is a non-believer to respond to such a question? I suspect that most theists would respond “true, but with reservations”. In other words they would say god could but would not do that. With the artificial constraint of answering only true or false, both believers and non-believers are prevented from providing a comprehensive answer. Not every query can be answered with a simple “true or false”.

Then there’s the attempt to set up a deliberate trap with #6 and #13.

“Question 6
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.” And….
“Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.”

I really can say “true beyond reasonable doubt” for #6 without the artificial requirement of “certain, irrevocable proof”. Again, the artificial constraint of the test maker’s interpretations does more to reveal the limitations of their own beliefs than to reveal any contradiction on the part of the test taker. Again, I grant provisional acceptance (for evolutionary theory) without belief of any kind. The test maker’s reveal their own beliefs again here;

“Question 14
As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.”

Clearly false. Perhaps a rephrasing of their position may highlight their erroneous assumptions.

“Non-faith is a matter of faith.” Need I clarify the absurdity of that position? The convoluted explanation they provided only demonstrated that, like so many others before them, they would like to define the non-believers position from a believer’s paradigm. No thanks. I’ve got a better idea for the phrasing of # 14.

“Because there is absolutely no evidence that god exists, belief is a matter of blind faith.” Period. Non-belief is not another kind of belief; it is the absence of belief. Question #14 completely ignores the fact that no one has an obligation to disprove god. On the other hand, theists have always had (and evaded) the burden of proof by making the incredible claim that god exists. “There is no god” is not a claim at all but merely a (dry) observation.

FWIW, I got two bullets. And some sort of award. Hey, how come there’s no coins flying out of my monitor? This award really blows.

[darkhunter]

Got the same results...

However, unless great care is taken in writing a survey, it will show the the writers beleifs more clearly than the respondents...

[DaveC]

On 2003-02-07 00:10, nebularain wrote:
About the religon quiz being set up for failure, I decided to show you what I mean:

It asks:
"Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything."

Well, if I believe God is omnipotent, and omnipotent means "all powerful," then I must believe that God is all powerful, and therefore I must answer "yes" to this question. (After all, what would I be saying if I answered, "No"?)

I dealt with this question with a bit of logic and said this was false. Can God, for example, create a rock so heavy that He Himself can't lift it? Given that there is no way to answer this question without limiting God's allegedly infinite power, the conclusion is that God cannot have the power to do anything and everything. One is compelled to answer "false".

I got through this one unscathed and got the 4 questions right on the logic test. Funny, I feel neither richer nor smarter than I was before. Fun exercises though. I wonder how the average moonhoax believer would do on the logic test.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2003-02-08 18:31 ]</font>

[Kizarvexis]

On 2003-02-08 15:35, DaveC wrote:
I wonder how the average moonhoax believer would do on the logic test.

I wonder how a battleground type of test would work if you subistituted moon hoax for belief in a deity? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

[David Hall]

I got smacked by the Loch Ness Monster trap myself.

I answered true to the Monster qustion because I believe it is possible to state with relative certainty that it doesn't exist. However I answered false on the "god doesn't exist" question because I think the scale of the matter is much larger. I think that, in our universe, it's almost impossible to reach the point where you could draw that conclusion with certainty. The problem with their "logical fallacy" really centers on the fact that they equate God and the Loch Ness Monster, something I can't agree with.

A second issue I have with this trap is that, even though I answered that one can be reasonably certain that the LNM is not real, one can not be absolutely certain it doesn't exist. So even though I answered true, I still have the flexibility to accept that my deduction was false, if evidence came to light that there really was a monster. So my answer is only true in a conditional sense.

I also bit the bullet with "God can't do impossible things" like make 1+1=22. I think that, yes, if there's a god, then he created the rules that govern the universe as well, and if he so desired he could change those rules, whether or not they adhered to logic. I don't get how this would make logical discussions of God impossible. God's ability to change the rules doesn't mean that there aren't rules in place now. We can still debate him unto the limits of our reality. Heck, we probably wouldn't even be able to notice if he did change the rules, we'd just accept them as reality and go on with our little debates.

And if there is no god, then there is no need to worry about him changing the rules anyway.

In regards to the first test, I got 3 out of 4, but I claim the excuse of taking it when I wasn't at full mental capacity, having worked all day and stayed up most of the night. Still, the one I missed was the one most often missed (at only 12% by the time I took it), so I'm wondering if there isn't some problem with the wording or the test order that's making it more susceptible to error. Considering the other 3 are all in the 40-50% range, I think it's a distinct possibility.

[Anonymous]

David Hall.


“The problem with their "logical fallacy" really centers on the fact that they equate God and the Loch Ness Monster, something I can't agree with.”


I concur. Apples and oranges. They attempt to compare the ultimate and most widely held supernatural belief with a garden variety, sparsely held belief. Kinda like comparing a Proton heavy lifter with a bottle rocket.


If they had equated Loch Ness Monster with vampires, it might fly.(for the purposes of their test, that is)

[DaveC]

The question that had the low percentage of correct answers isn't worded poorly, IMHO. It's of the type: A implies B. If you don't think it through you may not notice that it doesn't say A and only A implies B. The outcome, for the way the question was written, is: B does not imply A - in other words the presence of something (B) on one side of a card that is required to always be there when a certain thing (A) is on the other side, doesn't mean that that A is required to be on the reverse of B.
On the other hand, if the question had said A and only A implies B, then all cards with A or B on one side would have B or A respectively on the other.
Jay could tell you the name of the logical fallacy that caused most people to get this particular type of question wrong.