*not to be confused with the Lil Pip from FO:E

Hello and welcome to logic with Lil. Because almost alliteration is better than none lol.

Today we will see examples of improper logic, because the best way to learn logic is to avoid mistakes.

:-o But why is the best way to improve at logic is to learn to avoid making mistakes?

Thats a good question. That is because if you use faulty reasoning it will always be wrong, but if you don't use faulty reasoning what you say will at least be true if everything you think is true is true.

But what if what you think is true is not true?

That is why you also need to be aware that anything you know might be wrong. Which is why faith is a bad concept.

But why do you say faith is bad? It does good things too!

Just because it does some good things doesn't mean it doesn't cause mistakes.

So why should we be worried about making mistakes anyways?

Because mistakes can cause neglect which would cause harm.

If we make a mistake can't we just fix it after?

Not if you do not know its a mistake. Which is another reason why faith is bad, its almost an unquestionable authority that your decision was right, you have faith your faith is right for example.

How do we do logic aside from mistake avoidance, and how can we recognize mistakes?

Good questions. Lets start with how we can recognize mistakes. You have to ask questions to try and understand issues more, and asking questions can expose flaws in an argument or line of reasoning. Lets start with one like the 'wage gap'.

Alot of feminists like to cite this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html ' in 2013, women earned 78.3% as much as men aged 16 and over'. But they neglect that there might be other factors in play. This is usually try for most issues, so is a good way to approach a topic. You can ask what other factors might be the cause of this statistic or what might be left out. It might be women and men are different demographics so get jobs differently. Like how asians earn more than whites in America, its because more of them tend to be doctors, not necessarily because of work place discrimination. Which the link also sort of fuels why its wrong, but that just shows how some facts have multiple interpretations of which only one tends to be more true 'The Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who hold the same job and do the same work.' If it were the case women would be winning lawsuits, and getting hired more than men. Which gives another reason why its flawed, it might not even indicate a disadvantage to women depending on how you look at it if it were true. But that doesn't really matter because of this http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405 ' the gap is due mostly to choices men and women make in their careers and not discrimination.'

You just want me to stop being a feminist!

No, I am pointing out something that is true. It has already been shown that women prefer different jobs for whatever reason. Some would argue that is evidence that culture itself is the enemy then become even more radical. But thats not really the point anyways it was just an example of faulty reasoning. Until you know a problem inside and out, how can you truly know you know? Especially if you don't try researching or asking questions, and with sensationalist media assuming what you hear is true is a big mistake and you can spread it around because it gets you upset.

But how to really note what might be true is asking yourself, 'why do I think I know this?' and seeing if it really proves to be true or not from trying to debunk it.

Why try debunking it to see what is true?

You gotta do that because it ties back into eliminating mistakes. If you are correct it doesn't mean much if you can't prove it to yourself or others. You would always suspect you might be wrong, and if you are wrong it can harm others. How much it harms others depends on the specific case itself, but its best to prevent mistakes than to fix them after, because this way you or others don't need to deal with unexpected damages. Also its easy to find arguments to prove something is true, because of confirmation bias and cherry picking. Its not always easy or possible to avoid doing those, but it helps where you can prevent problems.

How does one debunk things? Also don't forget my other question.

Usually its as easy as googling it. But sometimes in a conversation you don't have the time to google it or the search requires too many terms and it becomes difficult to find anything. On top of that the debunk articles might even be wrong and you might need to try debunking the debunking articles and it might get messy. So like how you can ask yourself why do I think I know it, you can ask others the same question. If you notice there is a jump in logic, or there can be another factor that is not being considered or such you can piece apart why it isn't well pieced together.

Now for your other question, how do we logic aside from mistake avoidance?
Well we always have to be careful because we might be wrong. But its also possible that science is too slow to acknowledge truths you can discern before it is officially true. As long as your evidence aligns with evidence, and you do not ignore any counter-arguments/evidence but try to understand how it fits into the puzzle then you can better understand the truth of something.

For example, studies show that stress and sugar can cause oxidation of the veins. Stress can reduce cognitive performance, as can an excessive amount of sugar intake. They are similar biologically. Then you research schizophrenia and it suggests that they have a higher susceptibility to brain oxidation (oxidation of the veins in the brain). You research antioxidants and other things which prevent or counter vein oxidation. You learn oxidation is acidic ph balance, you learn blueberries have alot of antioxidants, you learn heart disease is caused by cardiovascular problems, you learn the body leeches calcium from the bones to reduce the blood acidity. You find out poor sleep increases oxidation to the brain, you find out people who don't exercise get more brain deterioration.
So now you can assume if you have a sudden mood problem, and you are eating unhealthy, not sleeping well, etc it can actually cause social problems, because of how a poor functioning brain increases irritability. You can problem solve and it all seems so much more interconnected. But, you still need to be careful because you can over-estimate the impact of something. Like saying that calcium and blueberries can help treat schizophrenia. While it is true, what if they already were eating healthy and everything? Their case of schizophrenia is severe and genetic or related to a brain injury or another different factor. You can still be wrong, despite having a good understanding, and sometimes a good understanding doesn't lend to practical application because you do not know how much calcium, how much blueberries. You now need to research more to know, to avoid making mistakes, and trying to debunk your own conclusions leads to further avenues of knowledge, and you will still be better prepared than someone who is faith oriented usually.

Usually?

Faith is researchable too. Studies tend to say morale, and confidence can lead to reduced competition anxiety. Whenever you can have the fear of failure it can help to be more confident, and that is where science suggests good luck charms can work. So some practices can help with some scenarios, which is why you need to better understand an issue inside and out, or you might assume they are wrong when they are not, which can decrease their moral if they believe you, then lead to more social stresses etc. But assuming they are right is also faulty, which is why research is needed for debunking, and for bunking. You have to be careful.

But there is also a problem with researching too much I already briefly mentioned when I said how you don't know how it is in practical application. You need experience not just knowledge or you will feel like second-guessing yourself because you do not know how to quantify something. Which is why relaxing can be good, and why spiritual practices can be good.

But at the expense of logic mistakes will be made, its hard to always weigh what is better. But when you understand everything better you can still make more correct seemingly non-logical actions as well. Like, prayer helps relieve stress from the one who prays, even if I don't believe in any modern gods (because I researched it with the aim to debunk, and succeeded greatly) then I can still pray for the practice itself. And I have some studies to suggest that knowing its not true and still doing it can yield some benefits still, it depends on mindset though. Also, just because prayer relaxes doesn't mean we place it into the pure good category either. A study shows when you tell others they are being prayed for before heart bypass surgery, the risk of complications increases. The only hypothesis on why that I can think of are because either it indicates their condition is more serious which decreases morale and health, or because the immune system stops because it thinks god is handling it for you.

Also understanding motivation is important because then you can see why a person might be making mistakes, when you understand fallacies, defense mechanisms, biases, and the three brains (logic, emotion, instinct). Also called the reptilian brain, is based on fight or flight generally. Why I say this, is because I notice subconscious motivations as well.

For example https://mlpforums.com/topic/161263-race-baiting-an-escape-hatch/post 1 here is confirmation bias leading into something that might be a persecution complex. They found one link, didn't research it more, and came to a potentially harmful conclusion. They would try solving the problem the wrong way if people just believe it at face value, and the subconscious motivation here is he is black, he feels more obligated to believe it perhaps, or something similar. So people need to be careful about what appeals to their nature, like this story really

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/FoxCrow.shtml

Because people sometimes get into this zone of, I am a girl so how can I not be a feminist? Its just obvious I should be one, because it'd be self-contradicting if I did not. Then it appeals more to their nature, its empowering. The moral high ground is a dangerous thing, and can lead to aggression similar to how Fluttershy was in that one episode with Iron Will. It is also why narcissism, racism, superiority complexes, 'my religion is the only true religion' mentality, etc, its all the same. Which is why we see sexism from feminists against men at times, and blm has been anti-white at times. Its intrinsically a sort of racist mentality, to define people through categorizations, like trying to get a token female president in just because she is female and we need one of those to be progressive. Technically, whoever is best at their job should get in, not just a woman. I think its because it appealed to women's nature too much, kinda like Oprah Winfrey's show which is kind of anti-male and anti-white before the term sjw has been around. Its just all a superiority complex, and it feels good, its like the moral high ground.

That is why people need to be careful, it extends to every problem in the world right now, improper logic does.

Take care.