Logic

[JohnnyReb]

I recently ended an interesting PM discussion with one of the guys on ATOT about logic. Ultimately what was discovered was that his criterion for something being Logical was if it made sense to him. I hold a Masters in Mathematical Logic and am greatly influenced by my training. What I found most interesting is that he claimed that logic was the basis for all his beliefs, and yet had no real concept of logical analysis.

Just wondered what your experiences were in this sort of thing.

John

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

In my research, I like to use the concepts of necessary and sufficient a lot. Do you consider those to be logical concepts?

 

[Doggiedog]

Most men = Logical

Women = Illogical

IMO

 

[Hammer]

Logic should not be based on beliefs, but absolute objectivity.

 

[Elledan]

<< Logic should not be based on beliefs, but absolute objectivity. >>


Exactly.



<< Ultimately what was discovered was that his criterion for something being Logical was if it made sense to him. >>


You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear.

 

[Netopia]

<< ...but absolute objectivity >>



I almost agree. I believe that logic must be based on the absolute. For something to be truly considered, it must be carried all of the way through to the logical conclusion.

This is why I don't understand athiests trying to do anything. LOGIC would dictate that with no God, we are flukes of the universe and neither we nor the universe have any meaning... we are just random occurances that will eventually be recombined and recombined until total entropy sets in and then the game is over. Why would anyone who believed this make any special efforts to the betterment of anything since it is ultimately a practice in futility. Logic would dictate otherwise.

Anyway... I'm sorry about sequeing. If anyone wants to discuss what I just wrote, we really should start a different thread to do it in. But... it is one of the things about "Logic" that I find most interesting. Another way to put it would be that I find that many, many people are willing to be logical right up to the point where they must face their deepest emotions and that then they are willing to make irrational decisions if those decisions make them more comfortable. I don't mean to make that sound like it's just athiests, it's EVERYBODY.

Joe

 

[azazyel]

Dr. Who..."Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

 

[Netopia]

<< You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear. >>



LOL... I guess we now know who the other party of the IM discussion was!

Joe

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear. >>



i am starting to wish i could see the thread of this PM discussion.

 

[Elledan]

<< This is why I don't understand athiests trying to do anything. LOGIC would dictate that with no God, we are flukes of the universe and neither we nor the universe have any meaning... we are just random occurances that will eventually be recombined and recombined until total entropy sets in and then the game is over. Why would anyone who believed this make any special efforts to the betterment of anything since it is ultimately a practice in futility. Logic would dictate otherwise. >>


Sunyata. Existance is empty, yet 'empty' does not equal 'nothing'.

It's not irrational to build up an existance even though you know that it'll have no impact on anything but futility, since the other option (to just give up everything and don't even make an attempt at living) is even more irrational, because

- we lack sufficient knowledge of the universe to even make a conclusion regarding its 'construction';
- existance is the only way through which curiosity (an admirable property) can be stilled. Suicide (literally or not) is not a logical option.

BTW, even with the existance of (a) god(s), existance remains futile. The existance of a god is futile.

Atheists and theists have far more in common than you think.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear. >>



i am starting to wish i could see the thread of this PM discussion. >>


It's quickly summarized:

Our JohnnyReb stubbornly hang on to what he had been taught during his education on 'logic', and maintained his position that logic can always be expressed through a language (thoughts are not (based on) a language until we start using them directly to communicate with), something I disagree with, because I've often experienced that thoughts (and thus logic) can exceed the reach of language.

I also pointed out that language is highly subjective and therefore unsuitable for logic. Only the most basic kinds of logic can be expressed through currently known languages.

 

[andaval]

As an agnostic person with athiestic tendencies, I would like to point out that assuming there is no God, there are still a lot of reasons to live life. In fact, I think it is spiritually exhilarating to appreciate life and live it to its fullest. Your life is what you make of it, every day you are lucky to be alive. To stay on topic, I have never understood a good logical reason to pray to the Christian God. First off, aren't you in your current situation because of him? Shouldn't you be happy with whatever he, in his infinite wisdom, doles out to you? Isn't it arrogant to ask God to change his mind about something?

 

I'm so with you JohnnyReb. I'm willing to bet that guy you had the discussion with was Elledan, for only he fits such profile. :Q LOL! Don't even waste your time!

"Our JohnnyReb stubbornly hang on to what he had been taught during his education on 'logic', . . ."

This got me cracking when you of all persons used that word "stubbornly", Elledan. LMAO.

On another note, though, mathematical logic has its issues with different methodologies. It is only that what we have come to accep what we use now, but in the philosophical world, there are cases for other systems of logic. In fact, Aristotle's logic was different from the logic we use, though it is said that his logic was flawed in certain aspects.

 

[roboninja]

<< As an agnostic person with athiestic tendencies, I would like to point out that assuming there is no God, there are still a lot of reasons to live life. In fact, I think it is spiritually exhilarating to appreciate life and live it to its fullest. Your life is what you make of it, every day you are lucky to be alive. To stay on topic, I have never understood a good logical reason to pray to the Christian God. First off, aren't you in your current situation because of him? Shouldn't you be happy with whatever he, in his infinite wisdom, doles out to you? Isn't it arrogant to ask God to change his mind about something? >>



I like that. I may have to steal it

 

[JohnnyReb]

Our JohnnyReb stubbornly hang on to what he had been taught during his education on 'logic', and maintained his position that logic can always be expressed through a language (thoughts are not (based on) a language until we start using them directly to communicate with), something I disagree with, because I've often experienced that thoughts (and thus logic) can exceed the reach of language.

I also pointed out that language is highly subjective and therefore unsuitable for logic. Only the most basic kinds of logic can be expressed through currently known languages.

Logic is based on the premise and the conclusion. You basically string premises and conclusions together (the conclusion becomes the next premise), until you arrive at what you are trying to demonstrate.

Well all know things that are true, but that we cannot logically express. It is wrong to defend this knowledge as logical, even though it makes sense to us and very easily could be true.

Logic is not sufficient to determine all truth. I absolutely do not base my beliefs entirely on logic. It is a great tool, once we understand its strengths and limitations.

Logic is the standard basis for philosophical discussion.

John

 

[Netopia]

I'm going to humbly back away from continuing on the religious bent... perhaps I should not have even put in my thoughts about logic in that area. I don't want to thread crap on JohnnyReb's logic thread and turn it into a religious one. If people would prefer, I will remove the original post.


<< Our JohnnyReb stubbornly hang on to what he had been taught during his education on 'logic' >>

And you didn't? LOL

I do have to agree that I don't think logic (even though it's Latin root is "word") needs language to exist. I do believe that it needs language to be expressed to anyone other than one's own self.

If I am a primative with no language, and I discover that when I put my hand in that red/yellow/orange/blue flower that I sometimes see (fire) it hurts and I decide that I won't put my hand in it, I may be using logic or mearly instinct. But, if I take a stick and put THAT in it and replicate the fire and carry it with me and start another fire to keep me warm, then I've used logic... even if I don't have words for the things that I see. The problem comes in communicating that logic to someone else without language. One must have a common language to communicate anything. The language doesn't have to be verbal... it could be mathematical or even pictoral, but there must me a medium (language) with which to convey meaning.

Joe

 

[Czar]

There are two kinds of logic, there is one that is based on observation that leads to some conclusion without it being influensed by personal opinion, this logic means that everyone will be able to reach the same conclusion. The other form of logic is one based on inprinted information that you dont realy notice because you assume everyone has this same information inprinted in them, most of the time this information is what you might call "moral belives". When you use this type of logic nearly everyone you talk to agree with you because this moral belive is brought by sociaty and most people you talk to is rised up in the same sociaty as you are. But when you start to talk to people from other sociaties this "logic" becomes very flawed.

I´d like to add that these types of logic gets mixed very very often.

 

[Hammer]

Logic allowed me to deduce who JohnnyReb was PMing with before Elledan posted. :Q

 

[JohnnyReb]

If I am a primative with no language, and I discover that when I put my hand in that red/yellow/orange/blue flower that I sometimes see (fire) it hurts and I decide that I won't put my hand in it, I may be using logic or mearly instinct. But, if I take a stick and put THAT in it and replicate the fire and carry it with me and start another fire to keep me warm, then I've used logic... even if I don't have words for the things that I see. The problem comes in communicating that logic to someone else without language. One must have a common language to communicate anything. The language doesn't have to be verbal... it could be mathematical or even pictoral, but there must me a medium (language) with which to convey meaning.

The other form of logic is one based on inprinted information that you dont realy notice because you assume everyone has this same information inprinted in them, most of the time this information is what you might call "moral belives". When you use this type of logic nearly everyone you talk to agree with you because this moral belive is brought by sociaty and most people you talk to is rised up in the same sociaty as you are. But when you start to talk to people from other sociaties this "logic" becomes very flawed.

Intuition - immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Logic - a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

I think we call the above "logic" instead of "intuition" because for some reason intuition seems to have a bad connotation while logic has a good connotation, when they both are neutral.

John

 

[Elledan]

<< Logic is based on the premise and the conclusion. You basically string premises and conclusions together (the conclusion becomes the next premise), until you arrive at what you are trying to demonstrate. >>

For example? I've never noticed this, perhaps you're just making just something up?



<< Well all know things that are true, but that we cannot logically express. It is wrong to defend this knowledge as logical, even though it makes sense to us and very easily could be true. >>

E.g.?



<< Logic is not sufficient to determine all truth >>

Because?


<< . I absolutely do not base my beliefs entirely on logic. It is a great tool, once we understand its strengths and limitations. >>

So you sometimes prefer subjectivity over objectivity? Right.

Logic (subjectivity) is far more than a tool.



<< Logic is the standard basis for philosophical discussion. >>

Not entirely true. Often a philosophical discussion is based on a number of irrational assumptions. See for example theological debates.

 

[yellowperil]

I wouldn't say logic is completely free from beliefs, in order to do some common types of logic you have to assume statements have truth values and in the case of reasoning, implication and causality. So it reflects your beliefs about the natural world in that sense.

Now, in the case of this ever-popular 'existence of God' debate, it seems to me that both atheists and deists seem to base their conclusions on sometimes shaky premises and mostly faulty reasoning. Even if the argument is valid (that is, deductive), that doesn't mean the conclusion is true, because you can still draw a conclusion from false premises. A valid argument only requires that all of the information present in the conclusion exists in the premises. People crap their pants with excitement when they make a valid argument, but don't see the bigger picture in the sense that perhaps their premises are false. Not to mention that whether it is possible to prove the existence of God through formal logic.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

I changed my mind... i don't want to know anymore details

 

[Elledan]

<< I wouldn't say logic is completely free from beliefs, in order to do some common types of logic you have to assume statements have truth values and in the case of reasoning, implication and causality. So it reflects your beliefs about the natural world in that sense.

Now, in the case of this ever-popular 'existence of God' debate, it seems to me that both atheists and deists seem to base their conclusions on sometimes shaky premises and mostly faulty reasoning. Even if the argument is valid (that is, deductive), that doesn't mean the conclusion is true, because you can still draw a conclusion from false premises. A valid argument only requires that all of the information present in the conclusion exists in the premises. People crap their pants with excitement when they make a valid argument, but don't see the bigger picture in the sense that perhaps their premises are false. Not to mention that whether it is possible to prove the existence of God through formal logic. >>


Correct. That's why nothing can be fully proven.

However, even though assumptions have to be made when using logic, it's also part of a logical reasoning to select the best supported (by evidence) assumptions. See thesises and theories in science.

 

[JohnnyReb]

However, even though assumptions have to be made when using logic, it's also part of a logical reasoning to select the best supported (by evidence) assumptions. See thesises and theories in science.

NOW you are talking about logic.



<< Well all know things that are true, but that we cannot logically express. It is wrong to defend this knowledge as logical, even though it makes sense to us and very easily could be true. >>

E.g.?

All men are created equal (as in US Declaration of Indepenence). This is a statement that I know to be true, I believe it to be self-evident, but I am unable to construct a strictly logical analysis that results in this conclusion. Someone else might be able to, but until then I will call it obvious, but I will not say it's logical. BTW, not being logical isn't the same as being illogical.

So you sometimes prefer subjectivity over objectivity? Right.

Never, but my logical ability has its limits. At these times I do subjectivly accept truth.

Not entirely true. Often a philosophical discussion is based on a number of irrational assumptions. See for example theological debates.

I said standard, not universal. Philosophers try to be logical.

In Theological debates, I always enter with certain premises. If these premises hold true, then my logic stands. If the premise is wrong, then my logic is meaningless (which doesn't make me wrong, just that my logic isn't valid).

John

 

[andaval]

Actually, I don't think you'll ever convince me that all men are created equal. Hell, look around, is everyone you see the same height? I would say that probably no two men are created equal. Of course, I believe that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, but that is just my opinion, one that is hardly self-evident given human history.