Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by PorchMonkey
I have much more than my opinion. I have porn.

Now how did I know this was going to happen? ... Different strokes for different folks!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.

I understand it's very important to get in the last word here, therefore this is last word I'm going to say about it (to you).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by SanitationCommitee
I believe logic=lies. All lies. The world is full of them. Take Jamie Lee Curtis. Were you aware she was a hermaphrodite as a child? How about our own former President, Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lie. Fulllll of crap.

LOL! Well, I see you are going to fit right in.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.

Then why do people write books about it? (the experience). And why do other people read them? If you're going to speak about anything, whether it be your own experience or whatever, then it "has" to entail logic.

And besides, you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that.

It appears that you overlooked the gist of my posts. For arguments "inside the box", evidence has to be 'sensed'. Whereas for arguments "outside of the box", evidence has to be reasoned - purely.

Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence.

Incorrect. You cannot prove it by observation. The artist is not to be found within his paint, but by how he paints.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".

ARRRRgggggggggggg! Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.

All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.

Originally posted by Mentat . . . there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.

Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.

What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?

Similarly, you are projecting the imperfections on a process, reason, that has very clearly defined rules, and which few people follow correctly. Then, you say it is reason which is ambiguous! No, it is people who can't reason well that confuses things.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
. . . you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.

 

[Iacchus32]

PorchMonkey

Hey what happened to PorchMonkey? He was just here a while ago, but now he's gone? Instead there's Sanitation Monkey (SanitationCommittee) which popped up in its place. It's funny because I just saw PorchMonkey posted up on the board (new user) and I thought, oh no it looks like he found me, and sure enough two minutes later there was the post. But now it's gone?

While it looks like Sanitation Monkey needs to clean up his act too! ... Oops! Gone again, right before this very post! ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.

It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.

I hear what you're saying, really I do, but I'm not abouts to change (give up my beliefs) just because it doesn't jive with other people's "standards." If there's one thing I have learned in this life, it's you have to be yourself. It won't work any other way. I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed on philosophy, yet it's obvious I have an inclination towards both, and this is what I've been given to work with. If people don't like what I say, or how I say it, then maybe that's good, because maybe they might learn something!

Hey man, I can get pretty ornery at times, and I have to admit, I kind of like it ... whereas I might acquiese, if I felt I actually knew something. Yeah right!

 

[Iacchus32]

LW Sleeth:

Don't be surprised if I don't show up posting one day, as I've been debating for some time on how on usefull it is to continue doing this. So don't take it personally if I'm gone one day and may never come back. This may even happen as early as tomorrow ... but then again I only intended to make a few posts today which, is how it started out, but I believe I've made more posts today then at any other time! So who knows? ...

 

[Perspectives]

Logic and Truth are optional

Logic and Truth, 5/3/2003 7:48 PM EST

I agree with the proponents of the belief that logic is a system of reasoning that concludes with an answer that is inherent in the systems design. In addition I agree with those that believe that truth is the antecedent of the premise. Truth is an essence of the systems under investigation. “Logic is to Truth as Mathematics is to myopia.”

Truth is a perspective granted through systems logic. Truth must present a basic connectivity to its logical system to fulfill its possibility. Logic allows conclusion while speculation grants Truth.

Our truths are limited by our ability to understand what we see. We interpret what we see through the use of our systems of understanding. Understanding allows verification, which begets Truth therefore, our reality. Of course there are “two plus two” truths and “God is real” truths. I am addressing the former not the latter.

We receive reinforcement of our reality when objective demonstration is presented. Most closed systems of belief that contain common elements are mutually supporting. Reality is validated every time we turn on a light bulb and it glows. Our explanation of the mechanics of conductors, electron flow, resistance, energy conversion works perfectly since it is demonstrated by incandescent bulbs, florescent bulbs, and electric motors, etc.

To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic. Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

If we can think outside the box, we can move to the next reality. To discover outside our present limits, we must explain elements that we understand under our present system of logic using a new system. The new system of verification must fall outside our present system. We may have reached our limits with our present supportive infrastructure, logic and mathematics, new values, relationships, supportive infrastructure to reach a new reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Welcome.

Originally posted by Perspectives
To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic.

'Knowledge' (physical laws) is objective. This can be confirmed by:
1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).
2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..
Now if you apply 'reason' to your sensations, you come-up with scientific-knowledge. Knowledge which can predict the future-outcome of existential (sensationed) events. Therefore, this knowledge is correct.

Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system? Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense. Concepts are born from our sensations - but not by them. There is no 'infinity' in our sensation. There is no 'nothing'. There is no 'equals'. Such things are reasoned beyond sensation. Logic - with its beyond-sensation concepts - allows you (science) to predict the future of universal events. Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.

 

[FZ+]

1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).

As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.

Or we're just lucky. Or trying to predict the wrong things.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..

Doesn't make them objective.

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system?

Yes it is. By both the "axiom" and "definition" principles.

Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense.

But there is no garantee these logical arguments are true, is there?

Such things are reasoned beyond sensation.

No. They are reasoned FROM sensation.

Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.

They are still reasoned from sensation. And there is no reason (excuse the pun) that such concepts are true, without sensational backing. And even then they may not be true.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
ARRRRgggggggggggg!

All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here .

Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.

Good enough example, but it doesn't have much to do with my point. What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable.

All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.

Sure I do. However, misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic".

Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.

One example...lifegazer's Mind proposition.

What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?

Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here .

Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.

Originally posted by Mentat
What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable. . . . misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic". . . . Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system.

Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.

But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly. If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer. But that does not in any way impune logic, it simply reveals that people can pull logic out of the reasoning process and use it like a hammer on every subject there is.

And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).

 

[Royce]

LW Sleeth,
My hat's off to you. You are in my mind a true logistician. I have been reading this thread and dispite the obvious references to other threads I have yet to read, I think you made your point and stuck to it. Everytime I wanted to make a remark to support a point you'd made you beat me to it said it better than I could. I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.
The only thing I would like to emphasize is the Logic is a tool with which we reason. There are others such as math. Logic like math if done properly will always come up with the correct answer but like any system, GIGO, Garbage In - Garbage Out. And as you so well pointed out like any tool it must be properly applied to the proper job at hand. I find it hard to separate math and logic. One is useless without the other and the same rules apply to both hense Boolean algebra helped so much in the development and design of computers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
LW Sleeth,
You are in my mind a true logistician.. . . I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.

Thank you Royce . . .live long and prosper (sorry Drag, it was logical that I borrow that).

 

[Perspectives]

Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.

We are as a matter of our existence, subjective. Formal logic is our answer to subjectivity. Formal logic rises above feelings and beliefs that are based on something other than demonstrable and verifiable processes. Formal logic and its resultant proofs are our attempt at creating a solidly objective definition of our existence. Our reality is defined by this formal process. And through them we attempt to interpret what we’ve proven. We have framed our reality by the tools that we’ve chosen to create and the reasoning we’ve chosen to employ to interpret our results. This we choose to call objective methodology or scientific methodology, if we use formal logic.

We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools to work on his or her automobile. Granted most people pop out and buy the tools but if you’ve ever worked on a machine that needs fixing without the proper tool, you may create one through necessity, even today. Normally we create a mechanism and then design the tools to service the mechanism. Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?


We have limited ourselves through selecting previously experienced supportative experiences. We have chosen to use things that will predictable produce an expected result. Granted there are experimental and applied workers that can weave tales till the wee hours of the morning about unexpected results. Either we’re looking at a poorly defined theory without supportative formal processes or a misdirected experiment.
Einstein devised many of his theories with codicils of suggested experimental verification. Why he expected them to work. He knew that a well framed question has at it’s roots, the answer.

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective. We define it, We choose it and we use it to define itself. Philosophy is at the leading edge of thought and some times even before it. It helps ignite the illumination that will expose potential answers to our questions. But it must sometimes go beyond our present system of reasoning by realizing we are enduring a subjective system of thought that is becoming limited in its perspective of reality. “We make reality in our own image.”

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Perspectives
Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.


We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective.

A very good post and I agree with all that you say except that it is a closed system. I think that in the above paragraph you contradict youself when you say on one hand that we create new tools as needed yet operate in a closed system. That we can create new tools to explore new ideas and experiments to me is an open system.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.

Now, if you would care to look at the dictionary definitions of subjective and objective, you have just completely denied your mind hypothesis.

For a quicky, subjective means existing only in the mind. Objective means existing outside the mind. So perception is outside the mind now, eh? Just what are you saying?

 

[Perspectives]

Royce,

Thank you for considering my thoughts. I have not clarified myself although I do tend to ramble and that is no assurance of clarity.

I submit that as a matter of consequence, we have fashioned a closed system. Even when we create a new tool it is no more than a modification of existing tools or at the very best a tool that is created from the root Logic from which all tools are created. In addition due to it’s imposed limitations we are predisposed to use what is at hand within our reality. The object of our attention through its limits are selected by us through default. This to my mind is subjective since it is all we have but more over it was created by us, through our subjective limitations. We can only know what we choose to know. Despite our attempts to distance ourselves from feelings and irrational beliefs, we have learned to at least separate ourselves from them by putting order to our thoughts even though the outcome will always be predictable. We model our reality based on our predisposed condition.

I have contemplated that we are as all animals, doomed to extinction through our own limitations. It is quite possible that our intellect will perform the job because we cannot “think outside the box.” What box? As the Bard put it, this “Mortal coil.” If this is so them might not this box have imposed limits on our ability to become more? I can only assume the body is of third importance and the mind being second and our essence first.

From our subjective self we must employ new means of consideration if we are to do more that think outside, we need to be outside the box.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.

Nice to know

Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.

Good idea (although it seems that a thread entitled "logic=truth?" is a fairly good place to discuss this, should you choose to do so).

But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly.

Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?

If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer.

You can't isolate it from "reason", but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here , I think I'll take that stance (for now).

And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).

Yes, they are established by logic. And so are many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality. Just take a look at the thread "I think therefore I am" (I'm having a hecuva time trying to argue this point against Manuel).

 

[Perspectives]

Royce,

I should indicate the basis of why I believe our system of reasoning is subjective.

Logic =Truth cannot be correct. Logic is a formalized process of reasoning and Truth is a judgment pronounced regarding what we see, Not what we’ve calculated. Formal Logic as applied to a problem such as the supportative mathematics Einstein used in the Special Theory of Relativity is irrevocable and irrefutable. Within the framework of the logic all is correct. It is but an explanation of his General Theory of Relativity; His interpretation through mathematical modeling of the universe.

The verbalizing, the interpretation as presented to his peers is an explanation, a truth-small t. There are places where it does not mesh with Quantum Physics. No GUT. Big G.
Is TOR and GT a very opportunistic explanations of reality for lack of a new view? Will SST support it? It certainly has provided a possible bridge between Einstein and Bohr.

The breakdown of any system occurs when it must be applied to the “Outer Limits” of our view of reality. We have limited ourselves by our creation of subjective tools and our application of them. While objectivity may be pronounced when we use Formal Logic and experimentation, the framework that their very existence creates limits us.

Our tools propose, through logic possibility. Experimentation verifies we are correct and those two attributes beg objectivity, then our interpretation must announce a truth. However the framework within which we operate, that which is outlined above surely limits our treatment of existence when we choose to explore it. We are in my view subjectively examining existence and pronouncing it reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?

It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

Originally posted by Mentat
You can't isolate it from "reason" . . .

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here , I think I'll take that stance (for now).

That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality.

Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

 

[Royce]

Persepectives,
While Logic and Math (I still can't separate them) are in and of the mind they are not subjective but abstract. They do not in anyway, in their pure form, attempt to represent reality but instead are pure thought, abstracts. As Logic and Math are defined solely in the mind and the rules are defined solely in the mind of Man they cannot be wrong. Unless you want to go very deeply into the metaphysical they are abstract concepts invented in the mind for the mind by the mind and as definitions they cannot be wrong. There is no intent to related them to Truth only that they are true. As tools they can be and often are applied to Truth and Reality sometimes successfully sometimes not. I've said this before in other places. I think it appropriate to repeat this as often as necessary, wherever and whenever necessary, because they are basic truths and we all too often try to make more of logic than it really is or try to dispute the validity of logic. You can't. You can only dispute whether or not the application or premise is valid.
I am not being dogmatic or a Nazi about this. I'm just explaining the rules and facts and why so many common beliefs of Logic and it's uses are wrong and do not apply.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).


That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.



Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).

That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience).

Isn't this contradictory? You are saying that the criterium for a "good" philosophy is that it be testable. But then you say that it need not be physically testable (last sentence quoted above).

Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

That's the point. Even your concept of "reality" could be entirely wrong, and thus there is no certainty in empirical testing.

 

[Perspectives]

Royce,

As you say Logic and Math are abstract concepts, they support objective thought. Therefore they provide an acceptable explanation of our existence, being clean of human weakness.
However, if the tools you are given cannot allow you to work on what you choose, then you are limited to a way of limited thought. An established portion of the scientific community cannot and will not think outside the box they have constructed. We have not devised an acceptable method of dealing with the unknowable. I said acceptable to the pragmatist, you and I on the other hand are content to discuss Philosophically the unknowable. We believe that some form of understanding within reason can and will be realized.
We also agree that established principles are true not the big T True.
You can't. You can only dispute whether or not the application or premise is valid.
I am not being dogmatic or a Nazi about this.
I couldn’t agree with you more, which is what I’m doing in my previous comments, maybe badly. The difference to my application of your statement of the basic statement is that in order to validate the rightness or wrongness we use the same tools that helped create them.
And as regards being a Nazi, I’m sure you are persistent, complete and willing to examine all sides of an argument but never a Nazi.

Perspectives

 

[Royce]

Thank you, perpectives, I've been very busy over in the Religion forum and am just now getting back to where I feel I belong. I apologize for not replying sooner.
-----------------------
"However, if the tools you are given cannot allow you to work on what you choose, then you are limited to a way of limited thought. An established portion of the scientific community cannot and will not think outside the box they have constructed."
-----------------------
Exactly so. I receintly read a book concerning the short comings of Logic and Philosopy in light of Quantum Mechanics. His main point was that our logic and Philosophy must change as they are more limiting now than helpful.
-------------------------
"We have not devised an acceptable method of dealing with the unknowable. I said acceptable to the pragmatist, you and I on the other hand are content to discuss Philosophically the unknowable. We believe that some form of understanding within reason can and will be realized."
---------------------------
Of course I do as do you but it takes a split personality to be able to do it. I find that I am contending with on person, espectially wuliheron on one subject, facet or level of philosophy and even greater concerning Logic in this "pragmatic" Philosophy formum but agree with him to the point of brotherly love for a mentor in the Religions Forum. I almost feel like a traitor at thosr times.

--------------------------

"The difference to my application of your statement of the basic statement is that in order to validate the rightness or wrongness we use the same tools that helped create them."
------------------------------
Yes, and that makebe its major falicy (sp?)but what choice do we have. There are no other tools to use.
The thing that I find so impressive is the the same tools we use in the material pragmatic world can also be use just as effectively in the subjective, immaterial, spiritual world. This encourages me in my belief that God is logical and rational. He may play dice but he doesn't play tricks.

 

[Perspectives]

Logic =Truth in a box

Royce,

I am elated that you have shown me that you understand my thoughts. Yes, there are two aspects of my proposition that rear their interesting heads, How do we entertain the unknowable? And Are these the times that reaffirm faith in God? The problem with solving the milestones that are considered outside the ability of knowing, Gods realm, is that once we know it, we consider it a renunciation of God. There will always be a great gulf between Man and God. For how can Man know Gods mind? How? Study Gods creation!

The Universe and all it’s trappings are truly enough to keep us busy and yes I agree with you, God does not play dice with the Universe, it is very logical, it has all the boundaries or lack thereof as we choose to define. One does not have to believe in God to use the same logic and tools that are defined as scientific or objective if you will.

Having said all this, I have been pondering for a while the next steps that we are taking about regarding a new way of thought. Surly fuzzy logic plays a part, which in my mind is an exercise in going back to the basics. That of grouping things together, defining relationships, and creating new forms of linkages that evoke understanding.

Of course developing new tools without knowing the machinery that one is ask to apply is shaky therefore a challenge may be in order to find the machinery. Or an iterative approach is in order, as we more clearly see the machinery, we develop the tools to move us closer to a truth, small t.

Don’t be concerned about the delays in communications as we all have day jobs or trying to get them. I do appreciate the conversation.

Perspectives