Why Sophistry always fails when confronted by LOGIC

Computers have no choice but to perform logic. Sure they aren’t actually thinking, but they operate on principles of pure logic. They have no choice in this, but all mechanism is unavoidably logical.

The feeling of “certainty” that comes up in the brain when a logical process gives a correct logical answer isn’t the same as “belief”. It’s automatic. Many people seem to conflate the two, but it’s not how the brain functions.

Feelings motivate, but logic doesn’t motivate, they’re not the same. You need feelings to motivate you, but logic doesn’t care what your feelings are. So when logic dictates an answer that you don’t like, you “feel” upset. You can deny the answer, but can’t make it cease to exist. When you deny the logical answer, you’re knowingly dishonest. Psychologically, you may try to find confirmation of your “desired” answer by looking to an authority figure to tell you what you want to hear. In other words, abandoning personal responsibility and returning to a childish view of the world in which someone else always has to tell you what to think and feel.

All reality can be broken down into simple parts. Humans HAVE TO attempt to do so because otherwise they can find no way to comprehend complex things. Geniuses are adept at simplifying the complexities, recognising the core, and then they can explain that simplicity behind the complexities to other people. What the sophist does is try to persuade people to believe that the sophist version is such a simplification as a genius does; it’s essentially an argument by authority and bamboozling. The sophist is limited though, because they aren’t an actual genius nor able to give the correct answers when tested; their sophist explanation always fails when turned on it’s head to say the opposite, or when the factors of the sophist argument are changed in values. So, the sophist is easily defeated by logic. All people have to do is “think” about the sophist’s argument, and it’s inevitable that the argument that outside the circumstances the argument was intended for it will be tested in a situation that demonstrates it’s fraudulent. So all of the sophist arguments used to indoctrinate children in the Western education systems quickly become exposed and recognised as fraudulent when the same people who went through that system get out into the real world for awhile.

A couple of examples to point out how sophistry fails versus logic:

“Black lives matter is not racist” – changed to “All lives matter is racist” ; clearly the 2nd statement is false, therefore the 1st statement is also false. All lives literally means ALL LIVES, and valuing all lives can’t be racist in any way.

“Only whites are racists” – changed to – “Only blacks are racists”; the 2nd is no more true than the 1st, therefore both statements are false.

“Silence equals consent” – changed to – “Noise equals denial“; the 2nd is meaningless by itself, for we must ask what kind of noise, what other kind of behaviour was happening at the same time, therefore the 1st is equally rendered meaningless by itself and is therefore false.

On the other hand, a logical statement remains true even when rewritten for the same meaning or reversed:

“Gravity makes things go down” – changed to – “Gravity does not make things go up”; clearly the 2nd statement is true as well, regardless of the reversal, the statement remains true and logical.