Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 142
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    How are you so certain that she won't be able to deny these first principles?
    Because every person assumes that they are true. If she claimed to deny them, you could very easily point out how her beliefs include those same principles.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Because every person assumes that they are true.
    Just because every person assume it's true doesn't make it true.

    If she claimed to deny them, you could very easily point out how her beliefs include those same principles.
    You can't use logic to disprove a position that doubts logic's validity, and since we cannot "not use logic" to do anything, we're the one who is stuck.

    You can brush it aside and say "it's not logical, therefore by logic it's a non-claim."

    But she would tell you that still wouldn't know whether or not it's the truth.

    You might say "a non-claim has no truth value."

    But she might say that she is not talking about truth as defined by logic, but our intuitive notion of some absolute truth that cannot ever be doubted.

    You might say "well if logic isn't true then logic is true anyway."

    She may respond that just because we can't understand a world without logic doesn't mean it is definitely nonexistent.

    If you really want to convince her, then what you need to do is appeal to her intuitions and show her that it is not possible to think without assuming that at least some of your laws of logic are true, and then show her that if she accepts this, then it readily leads to the rest of your laws of logic being true. If you can do this, then she will be convinced because she would realize it is not possible to think otherwise and still be consistent (in fact, consistency is part of logic, you just gotta show that her current way of thinking is in fact logical and abides by your rules).

    But I'm contending that just because the world is convinced doesn't necessarily make it definitely true, does it? If so, how? That's the question I'm asking.

  3. #23
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    You can't use logic to disprove a position that doubts logic's validity, and since we cannot "not use logic" to do anything, we're the one who is stuck.
    Correct. Which means that to refute logic, is illogical since you admit to not using it. And if one isn't going to use logic (see the op as to what it is: summary: correct reasoning), then it is safe to say that to not use it, is unreasonable thinking.

    Is it better to use reasonable or unreasonable thinking?

    Logic isn't magic. It isn't something revolutionary. It isn't something spiritual. It isn't something that "the human mind can never understand". It is merely "ordered reason". It is the process in which correct conclusions are reached.

    Anything outside of that correct process, is incorrect by default. Why subscribe to incorrect thinking? It's once again, a self-defeating position.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; April 29th, 2009 at 02:09 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #24
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    How are you so certain that she won't be able to deny these first principles?
    Because all first principles are undeniable logically. One can certainly be illogical and deny them...but then, there's the problem of being illlogical.

    I challenge anyone to refute a first principle. It simple cannot be done.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    First, let's define this notion of absolute truth. I intuitively hold that absolute truth is something that cannot be doubted, it's always true no matter what.

    Next, maybe a good way to summarize what I'm saying is that all things logical are relative to logic; all claims and proofs are relative to logic; all human understanding and knowledge are relative to logic, but relative does not mean absolute, relative means uncertainty of absolute.

    Whether this generalization is true of what I'm saying, I'll leave that for you to decide based on the rest of this post.

    Correct. Which means that to refute logic, is illogical since you admit to not using it. And if one isn't going to use logic (see the op as to what it is: summary: correct reasoning), then it is safe to say that to not use it, is unreasonable thinking.
    Does being unreasonable mean being absolutely untrue?

    Is it better to use reasonable or unreasonable thinking?
    Better in what sense? More absolutely true? More practical? More irrationally desirable? I would agree with the latter two and disagree with the first one because I don't think we can claim that much.

    Logic is magic. It isn't something revolutionary. It isn't something spiritual. It isn't something that "the human mind can never understand". It is merely "ordered reason". It is the process in which correct conclusions are reached.
    It is the process in which logically correct conclusions are reached

    Anything outside of that correct process, is incorrect by default. Why subscribe to incorrect thinking? It's once again, a self-defeating position.
    Anything outside of that logically correct process is logically incorrect by default. I don't subscribe to logically incorrect thinking, but I don't claim that the thinking I subscribe to is absolutely correct just because it's logical.

    If you claim such a thing, can you support it convincingly?

    Because all first principles are undeniable logically. One can certainly be illogical and deny them...but then, there's the problem of being illlogical.
    Yes, the problem of being illogical, an unsolved problem, an unknown problem, a problem we do not know the answers to.

    I challenge anyone to refute a first principle. It simple cannot be done.
    It probably can't be done intuitively, you mean.

    If I were to hold the position that logic is absolutely incorrect, can you show me that I am wrong? You can't use any premise that conflict with my conclusion because that would be saying "because you're wrong, therefore you're wrong."

    Apok, I am not claiming that logic is false nor logic is not more desirable than illogic. I personally hold a position of uncertainty on the former and agree with the latter. I'm merely questioning why absolute truth must be logic, and so far the only answer you've given me is that "logic must be true because logic is logic," and I don't find that very convincing.

    Is it not possible that everything we human being has ever come to observe, to know, to think about, to realize, to contemplate, etc... are wrong? Including logic.

    The possibility exists, and we don't know if we're in it. Agree or disagree? Support?

    But we subscribe to logical thinking anyway, not because we know with 100% certainty that it's absolute truth, but because it brings us practical things like consistency, and we cannot function without subscribing to logical thinking.

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

    Put it another way. I think I am correct in thinking that your current idea of how to use logic is that: if something is true, then you can use logical rules to deduce them down to logical axioms, such as the ones you've listed previously.

    I would note that you can't go any further than logical axioms and logical rules. You would say there is no need to go any further because logical axioms and logical rules are self evident.

    I would say that self evidence is the key. I would ask that why is it that we accept logical axioms and logical rules to be self evident, and nothing else? Why is it that I can't say "I am 40 years old" and claim that my statement is self-evident?

    You would then respond that because such statement might conflict with logical axioms and logical rules. So then, I would ask why does logical axioms and logical rules get priority over any other statement?

    Then I think you would be stuck, or continue going in some sort of circle and say "because they are logic, they are truth" yet unable to support it in a convincing manner.

    So then I would assert that the reason why we believe in logic is because of three things (or at least three that I can think of right now).

    1) Intuition
    We accept logic because it is intuitive. As in, we don't know why we do, but we cannot deny that we do.

    2) Practicality
    We accept logic because it brings practical results that are consistent with our observations and experiences. Being able to understand reality makes us happy, so we want to accept logic.

    3) Necessity
    We accept logic because we human beings cannot function without subscribing to it. We cannot imagine what is illogical because then it would no longer be consistent with our observations and experiences. Hence, we cannot not accept logic.

    Out of these three, none of them has anything to do with the idea of absolute truth. Hence, we can know what is logical, but we can't know what is true. Now, I am afraid that I might again be using logic to evaluate what's beyond the logical domain, but I think I'm probably safe because my position on absolute truth is one of uncertainty.

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

    Something else to think about. Definitions cannot exist by themselves, they require other definitions. If you define a bird as a flying animal with feathers, then the definition of a bird requires the definition of "flying," "animal," and "feathers."

    If you keep on following these definitions to their roots, then you will see that inevitably, somewhere the dictionary makes a loop. There are certain cases where the loop is tiny enough for an example. Look up the word "exist." You'll get definitions like "to have actual being." Then look up the word "be." You'll get definitions like "to exist or live."

    So how do we understand knowledge? How does our mind enter this whole self-looping quantity that is human knowledge? We make our very first step through intuition. Do you not agree with this? All human knowledge comes from intuition and our opinion of their validity rests on our intuition.

    Logic is no exception. It might be the very first piece of knowledge, but it still comes from intuition.

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    Just because every person assume it's true doesn't make it true.
    You didn't ask how we know they're true; you asked how Apok could be certain that she wouldn't deny them.

    You can't use logic to disprove a position that doubts logic's validity, and since we cannot "not use logic" to do anything, we're the one who is stuck.
    That's not true. The question of whether logic is valid it itself a logical question--hence the notion of "validity".

    You can brush it aside and say "it's not logical, therefore by logic it's a non-claim."

    But she would tell you that still wouldn't know whether or not it's the truth.

    You might say "a non-claim has no truth value."

    But she might say that she is not talking about truth as defined by logic, but our intuitive notion of some absolute truth that cannot ever be doubted.

    You might say "well if logic isn't true then logic is true anyway."

    She may respond that just because we can't understand a world without logic doesn't mean it is definitely nonexistent.

    If you really want to convince her, then what you need to do is appeal to her intuitions and show her that it is not possible to think without assuming that at least some of your laws of logic are true, and then show her that if she accepts this, then it readily leads to the rest of your laws of logic being true. If you can do this, then she will be convinced because she would realize it is not possible to think otherwise and still be consistent (in fact, consistency is part of logic, you just gotta show that her current way of thinking is in fact logical and abides by your rules).
    What you really need to do is show her that she already makes the assumption, which is exactly what I already sadid

    But I'm contending that just because the world is convinced doesn't necessarily make it definitely true, does it? If so, how? That's the question I'm asking.
    You didn't ask whether the principles are definitely true; you asked how Apok could be certain that someone else couldn't deny them.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    You didn't ask how we know they're true; you asked how Apok could be certain that she wouldn't deny them.
    You didn't ask whether the principles are definitely true; you asked how Apok could be certain that someone else couldn't deny them.
    People can deny these principles as long as the principles are not definitely true.

    Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "deny." But I hold that she can disagree with you as long as the principles are not definitely true, and you have no way of convincing her otherwise.

    And if they can, then you can't be certain that they can't and wouldn't.

    That's not true. The question of whether logic is valid it itself a logical question--hence the notion of "validity".
    I hold that what we know as "logically valid" is not the same as what we know as "intuitively valid." I hold that the latter is the basis for the former to be accepted, and I hold that this basis doesn't exist for when we use logic to evaluate logic because although we feel strongly for the case that logic is valid, we also feel strongly for the case that using something to prove itself is just absurd.

    Is logic true? yes, logic is true because logic says so.
    Am I right? yes, I'm right because I say so.

    Same form. What's the difference? That logic is always true and I might not be true? How can you be so sure?

    What you really need to do is show her that she already makes the assumption, which is exactly what I already sadid
    If "she denies your laws of logic" means she claims your laws of logic are absolutely wrong. Then what you say would work.

    If "she denies your laws of logic" means she disagrees with your strong position that the laws are absolutely right. Then what you say would not work.

    To clarify, I'm trying to explore whether or not logic is absolutely true, and that post seemed like a good starting point.

  8. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    People can deny these principles as long as the principles are not definitely true.

    Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "deny." But I hold that she can disagree with you as long as the principles are not definitely true, and you have no way of convincing her otherwise.

    And if they can, then you can't be certain that they can't and wouldn't.
    The only thing you'd need to do to convince her that she's wrong is to show that she already makes the assumption that they're true.

    For instance, if she denies that X =/= ~X, then by claiming "the assumption of non-contradiction isn't true", she's claiming "the assumption of non-contradiction is true", and thus has already agreed with you.

    I hold that what we know as "logically valid" is not the same as what we know as "intuitively valid." I hold that the latter is the basis for the former to be accepted, and I hold that this basis doesn't exist for when we use logic to evaluate logic because although we feel strongly for the case that logic is valid, we also feel strongly for the case that using something to prove itself is just absurd.

    Is logic true? yes, logic is true because logic says so.
    Am I right? yes, I'm right because I say so.

    Same form. What's the difference? That logic is always true and I might not be true? How can you be so sure?
    Because we all make that assumption. Any person who advances your arguments has already defeated themselves.

    If "she denies your laws of logic" means she claims your laws of logic are absolutely wrong. Then what you say would work.

    If "she denies your laws of logic" means she disagrees with your strong position that the laws are absolutely right. Then what you say would not work.

    To clarify, I'm trying to explore whether or not logic is absolutely true, and that post seemed like a good starting point.
    If she disagrees with my position that the laws are absolutely right, then she's advancing the claim that under some condition, they are wrong. I would ask her to provide those conditions, or explain why/how such conditions must exist.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    The only thing you'd need to do to convince her that she's wrong is to show that she already makes the assumption that they're true.

    For instance, if she denies that X =/= ~X, then by claiming "the assumption of non-contradiction isn't true", she's claiming "the assumption of non-contradiction is true", and thus has already agreed with you.
    I'll give you that she, as a human being, might not honestly be able to deny first principles by logic. I realize this. However, I still contend that just because we are limited by logic doesn't mean we have a basis to say that logic is true absolutely.

    So, the question still remain, is logic absolutely true? Is the answer to this knowable?

    Because we all make that assumption.
    So you're admitting that it's an assumption (i.e. regardless of whether it is actually true, it is taken as being true by us humans).

    Any person who advances your arguments has already defeated themselves.
    Only if the above assumption is actually true.

    If she disagrees with my position that the laws are absolutely right, then she's advancing the claim that under some condition, they are wrong.
    The condition is that if logic is not absolutely true.

    I would ask her to provide those conditions, or explain why/how such conditions must exist.
    She doesn't have to explain why/how such conditions must exist. All she has to do is to show how such conditions could exist, and it would support a position of uncertainty.

    But the problem is, logically, a world without logic cannot exist.
    But we don't know whether or not such a world really can't exist. We have only what logic tells us, and nobody has yet shown a convincing argument that logic has to be absolutely true in any domain, even ones unknown by humans and ones beyond human comprehension.

  10. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    I'll give you that she, as a human being, might not honestly be able to deny first principles by logic. I realize this. However, I still contend that just because we are limited by logic doesn't mean we have a basis to say that logic is true absolutely.

    So, the question still remain, is logic absolutely true? Is the answer to this knowable?
    I'm not clear on the distinction between "true" and "absolutely true". To me, they are interchangeable.

    So you're admitting that it's an assumption (i.e. regardless of whether it is actually true, it is taken as being true by us humans).
    I wouldn't characterize it as an "admission", since I've only ever argued that it is an assumption.

    Only if the above assumption is actually true.
    Not really, no. Even if the assumption is false, the person advancing the claim still tacitly shares the assumption, and thus defeats their own argument.

    The condition is that if logic is not absolutely true.
    That's like saying "If 1+1 =/= 2, then 1+1 =/= 2." It's an invalid condition, because it never exists--or can you show that it does?

    She doesn't have to explain why/how such conditions must exist. All she has to do is to show how such conditions could exist, and it would support a position of uncertainty.
    How could they exist, then?

    But the problem is, logically, a world without logic cannot exist.
    But we don't know whether or not such a world really can't exist. We have only what logic tells us, and nobody has yet shown a convincing argument that logic has to be absolutely true in any domain, even ones unknown by humans and ones beyond human comprehension.
    There is no more reason to presume that it is limited to our human domain than to presume that it isn't; if the law of non-contradiction is true--which all claimants must assent to--then it is true everywhere of all things.

    To put it bluntly: For what x does the statement "x =/= ~x" not hold?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  11. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    "Let there be Logic"

    Logic is a tool that can be used to answer some questions, if we are given the right set of valid assumptions. One problem is that it's often difficult, if not impossible to know whether our assumptions are valid. Furthermore, Logic is a process that is performed by human beings. Being imperfect creatures, we cannot know with 100% certainty whether we performed the logical operations correctly. The more complex the question, the more assumptions we need to answer it and the more complex the logical operations become. One final problem is that the natural universe doesn't always follow logical rules. For example, light is simultaneously a particle and a wave.

    X = light
    Y = light
    X =/= Y

    ?

    http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    The distinction between "true" and "absolutely true" is that one lacks a modifier while the other one doesn't. If you give me the former, I can ask questions. True according to what? I can claim that something is true by the knowledge of the Aztec, but it would not be true according to the knowledge of modern philosophers. Certainly this is different from the notion of something being "absolutely true."

    If it makes things easier to understand, one depends on definition, while the other one in general can only have one intuitive definition.

    I wouldn't characterize it as an "admission", since I've only ever argued that it is an assumption.
    So then you have always agreed that it is an assumption, namely, regardless of whether it is actually true, it is taken as being true by us humans.

    The act of "taken to be true" has the three reasons I've listed in a previous post, none of which has anything to do with absolute truth.

    Not really, no. Even if the assumption is false, the person advancing the claim still tacitly shares the assumption, and thus defeats their own argument.
    You're using logic under the assumption that logic is invalid. We can't do anything if logic is false. We can't know anything if logic is invalid, not even such a world's falsity. Accept it.

    That's like saying "If 1+1 =/= 2, then 1+1 =/= 2." It's an invalid condition, because it never exists--or can you show that it does?
    Math is a model that describes real world phenomenon. We have this intuitive concept of singularity and plurality, but the actual symbols, the numbers, the operations, etc... are invented by man for the practical purpose of keeping track of our intuitive concepts of singularity and plurality. Man invented the symbol "1". Man invented the symbol "2." Man invented mathematics, in fact, man invented different ways to do math that best fits different conditions. Under binary math, "2" doesn't exist, but the intuitive idea of having a plurality of two such singularities does exist.

    Suppose there's some demon that has power over the world. The demon's power is magic and can let anything happen. Suppose that the instant we put two potatoes together, the demon conjures up a third potato and also deceives our senses so that we can never notice it. In this case, the demon knows more than we know, the demon is closer to the truth than we are, yet according to the demon, 1+1 = 3, not 2.

    And if you argue that the demon did the extra addition yet the rules of math doesn't change, I can change the story a little. The demon does not do anything, he's only an observer, and the extra potato we humans cannot sense appearing is actually built into the laws of the universe. What then?

    But for all practical purposes as far as we humans know, 1+1 = 2. For practical purposes, we have no reason to believe there is a demon, but that doesn't mean such a possibility isn't there.

    How could they exist, then?
    They can exist if we cannot rule out the possibility, and until we humans attain that absolute truth - until we humans know all, we cannot rule out the possibility.

    How hard is it to understand that we don't know what's beyond our capability to know?

    There is no more reason to presume that it is limited to our human domain than to presume that it isn't; if the law of non-contradiction is true--which all claimants must assent to--then it is true everywhere of all things.
    Even if logic is not limited to our human domain, we still can only know for certain the logic within the human domain. Anything beyond our ability to know, we do not know.

    To put it bluntly: For what x does the statement "x =/= ~x" not hold?
    Any x beyond the capability of human thought has the potential to not hold, because we do not know anything about it.

    Recap:
    The question is: is logic absolutely true?
    My answer is:
    -absolute truth encompasses all domains
    -we can only know things within the human domain (i.e. within our mental capability)
    -anything outside of the human domain is beyond our capability to know
    -therefore, we do not know how true logic is on all domains

    I contend that the above is highly intuitive and you can't deny that it is an intuitive line of reasoning.
    I also contend that you cannot prove it wrong with logic because it presupposes that we don't know logic for sure, so even if logic says it's wrong, there's still the possibility that logic is wrong, and if logic is indeed wrong, then we know even less.

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    The distinction between "true" and "absolutely true" is that one lacks a modifier while the other one doesn't. If you give me the former, I can ask questions. True according to what? I can claim that something is true by the knowledge of the Aztec, but it would not be true according to the knowledge of modern philosophers. Certainly this is different from the notion of something being "absolutely true."
    The claim "something is true by the knowledge of the Aztec" is true everywhere, for everyone, at all times.

    If it makes things easier to understand, one depends on definition, while the other one in general can only have one intuitive definition.
    All truth is absolute truth.

    So then you have always agreed that it is an assumption, namely, regardless of whether it is actually true, it is taken as being true by us humans.
    Yes.

    You're using logic under the assumption that logic is invalid. We can't do anything if logic is false. We can't know anything if logic is invalid, not even such a world's falsity. Accept it.
    First, I'm not "using logic under the assumption that logic is invalid". I'm arguing that anyone who argues that logic is invalid cannot do so with intellectual honesty.

    Second, the notion of "validity" necessitates a system of logic.

    Math is a model that describes real world phenomenon.
    That's a highly simplistic and flawed. The square root of -1, for instance, is a mathematical concept that does not describe "real world phenomenon".

    We have this intuitive concept of singularity and plurality, but the actual symbols, the numbers, the operations, etc... are invented by man for the practical purpose of keeping track of our intuitive concepts of singularity and plurality.
    Math is not limited to the concepts of singularity and plurality.

    Man invented the symbol "1". Man invented the symbol "2." Man invented mathematics, in fact, man invented different ways to do math that best fits different conditions. Under binary math, "2" doesn't exist, but the intuitive idea of having a plurality of two such singularities does exist.
    Man invented symbols--just as man invented language--as a signifier of some object (the 'signified'). Arguing that man invented the word "cat" does not show that man invented cats.

    Suppose there's some demon that has power over the world. The demon's power is magic and can let anything happen. Suppose that the instant we put two potatoes together, the demon conjures up a third potato and also deceives our senses so that we can never notice it. In this case, the demon knows more than we know, the demon is closer to the truth than we are, yet according to the demon, 1+1 = 3, not 2.
    Actually, according to the demon, 1 potato (given) plus 1 potato (given) plus 1 potato (conjured) = 3 potatoes.

    And if you argue that the demon did the extra addition yet the rules of math doesn't change, I can change the story a little. The demon does not do anything, he's only an observer, and the extra potato we humans cannot sense appearing is actually built into the laws of the universe. What then?
    1+1 =/= 3; 1+1=2. In this case, the summation of two potatoes triggers the summation of one additional potato. Thus, (1+1)+1 = 3 potatoes, 1 of which we cannot detect.

    But for all practical purposes as far as we humans know, 1+1 = 2. For practical purposes, we have no reason to believe there is a demon, but that doesn't mean such a possibility isn't there.
    Even assuming that your mathematics weren't flawed, how would such truth be relevant? If we cannot detect its presence, and it has no bearing on our existence, why does it matter if it's true?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    The claim "something is true by the knowledge of the Aztec" is true everywhere, for everyone, at all times.
    If "something is true by the knowledge of the Aztecs."

    Then "something is true" is only limited to the knowledge of the Aztecs. Only those agree with the knowledge of the Aztecs will consider it true.

    "Something is true by the knowledge of the Aztecs" is only limited to the knowledge of those who knows the knowledge of the Aztecs (but may or may not agree with such knowledge's validity). Only those who knows the knowledge of the Aztecs will consider this particular statement true.

    The seemingly universal statements are still dependent on our current human knowledge. The problem is as long as we humans have a perspective, we will forever be locked to this perspective and be limited to what this perspective can do. Absolute truth is a notion beyond this limit.

    Though I think this Aztec thing might be a bad analogy.

    All truth is absolute truth.
    Aztecs may claim "this is true."
    You, with knowledge of modern science and years of background in philosophy, may disagree.
    A demon, with knowledge greater than that which is possible in man, may disagree with you.

    You claim that you have truth and that it's the absolute truth. In that case, you must imply that such a demon who is closer to the truth than you are does not exist. How do you support that? Because you can't understand how there could be a greater knowledge?

    First, I'm not "using logic under the assumption that logic is invalid". I'm arguing that anyone who argues that logic is invalid cannot do so with intellectual honesty.
    I think I'm being awfully honest, and that itself is an honest statement. Let's take a look at what you've said to which I have replied.

    Quote Originally Posted by from an earlier post, Clive
    Not really, no. Even if the assumption [that logic is true] is false, the person advancing the claim still tacitly shares the assumption, and thus defeats their own argument.
    You'd agree with me that the assumption here is that logic is false.
    The problem with the person advancing the claim is that he assumes logic is true.
    Logic cannot be both true and false at the same time.
    Therefore, the person defeats his own argument because he broke the law of noncontradiction.

    You'd agree that these are what you meant when you wrote the text quoted here. I am telling you that if logic is false, then a logical contradiction is not a definite mistake. I'm telling you that if logic is false, then logic might be true and false at the same time. Oops, I just made a contradiction, but it doesn't matter, because logic is false. That is what we're assuming.

    If logic is false, then we know nothing for certain, we can't do anything. To think about logic being false is to venture into a world of the unknown that can never be known.

    Second, the notion of "validity" necessitates a system of logic.
    Only if logic is true.
    If logic is false, "validity" doesn't necessitate anything because only on logical grounds can you say that validity necessitates a system of logic.

    But I'll tell you why I'm using the word "validity." When describing universal truth, it's much better to use the word "true," but it has too much connotation with "logical true" and I was afraid people would mix them up.

    So, if you don't like the word, help me think of a better word.

    That's a highly simplistic and flawed. The square root of -1, for instance, is a mathematical concept that does not describe "real world phenomenon".
    It might not describe any real world phenomenon directly, but you cannot deny that we have came to the concept of complex numbers through a long history of observing real world phenomenon and processing such observations. Complex numbers rely on the concept of a square root. The concept of a square root relies on the concept of squaring something, and the concept of squaring something can easily be related to the real life phenomenon of boxing a field.

    Let me word what I said a bit differently. Math is a model that describes both real world phenomenon and the rules of interactions that governs them. Math is like logic, you start out with some given, they lead flawlessly to a conclusion for as long as we are able to do the mathematics in between. However, it ultimately comes from our interpretation of reality, it is not the reality itself. In reality mathematics only exist as an idea, a model, that arise in the heads of man.

    Math is not limited to the concepts of singularity and plurality.
    Obviously not, but without concepts of singularity and plurality, there can be no math.
    Yet, these concepts are derived from reality.

    Man invented symbols--just as man invented language--as a signifier of some object (the 'signified'). Arguing that man invented the word "cat" does not show that man invented cats.
    Man invented ideas. I'm arguing that man invented the idea of "cat." Without the idea of a "cat." What you see as a cat would merely be some physical object of certain characteristics that behaves in a certain way. But then, this description relies on the idea of "physical," "objects," "characteristics," and "behavior" among others. Without these ideas created by man in response to sensory information telling us about reality, we can know nothing. All knowledge is the result of man's interpretation of reality.

    1+1 =/= 3; 1+1=2. In this case, the summation of two potatoes triggers the summation of one additional potato. Thus, (1+1)+1 = 3 potatoes, 1 of which we cannot detect.
    Forgive me, it was a bad example. I can't show an example of what's not logical through logical means. That was the mistake I've made. So now I'll show an example where all that can be not logical is unknown, and you try it.

    This is similar to the simulated universe hypothesis.

    Suppose that the universe is all just a big simulation done by something with the capabilities to do it. We do not know anything about the simulation, how it is done, who is doing it, what's outside the simulation, etc... Our knowledge is limited to the output of the simulation, which is our universe with consistent laws and human beings thinking.

    Can you claim that notions such as logic and math as we know it also must exist in the world outside the simulation?

    Even assuming that your mathematics weren't flawed, how would such truth be relevant? If we cannot detect its presence, and it has no bearing on our existence, why does it matter if it's true?
    Relevance of a truth is a practical concept. You are now appealing to practicality. I would agree with you. I think that if there is absolute truth beyond human knowledge, such truths wouldn't be relevant, and wouldn't matter to us.

    But to be intellectually honest, I cannot deny that we don't know anything about this notion of absolute truth outside of what we can know. This is why I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim absolutes. All claims are only true relative to human knowledge. We can assume it's truth for the sake of practicality, but we cannot say with certainty that it is indeed absolutely true. Agree or disagree?

  15. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Upon reevaluation of the last post, I can't help but to get the sense that the discussion regarding logic and absolute truth has gone a little bit out of control. I still think it's an important issue though, so I will try to put at least my position into perspective.

    First, Let us agree that any use of logic requires an implicit premise - that logic is true. True to what extend? Well, that's what we're about to discuss. In the beginning, we're going to assume what Clive would probably say, that logic is absolutely true. (all truth is absolute truth)

    Here, I submit a logical proof that humans cannot know absolute truth.

    Implicit Premise: Logic is absolutely true (all logical proofs require this premise)

    Point1: Human knowledge (the set of all things humans know) is finite.

    Point2: Humans can only know things within human knowledge. (If humans knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know)

    Point3: Absolute truth is not limited to human knowledge. (Absolute truth may or may not be inside the set of all things humans know)

    Point4: If absolute truth is within human knowledge, then humans can know it. If absolute truth is outside human knowledge, then humans cannot know it.

    Point5: By Point3, we do not know which possibility is the case in Point4, therefore we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth.

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

    Although you will not be able to find any disagreeable premises or misused logical rule in the above argument, you still see a contradiction between my result and the implicit premise. The premise claims knowledge about absolute truth, yet it follows that point 5 concludes that such knowledge is unknown.

    It is by this point, you will tell me that my above proof is wrong. It is here when you will disregard all that I have said, and continue on. However, if all premises are true and the rules of logic are used flawlessly, then a contradiction cannot follow. So then, there must be some incorrect premise, or some incorrect use of logical rules, up there.

    But can you find it? I know I can't, and I've given quite a bit of effort. Look through every single of my premises and logical rules used in the argument. Where is the mistake? If there really is a mistake, and you can point it out to me, then please do, because I want to know.

    But, suppose that there is no logical mistake and it still lead to a logical contradiction, then it can only mean one thing - that our concept of logic which we used to evaluate the logical validity of the argument, is flawed.

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

    In fact, it's really quite simple and you probably saw it already. There is indeed a premise that is flawed, but it is not one of my premises, it is the implicit premise that causes the contradiction.

    The argument is perfectly valid if we change the implicit premise from:

    Implicit premise: Logic is absolutely true (a claim of truth)

    to

    Implicit premise: Logic is taken to be true (a claim of action)

    So now, at least the argument is valid. However, how does the change in the implicit premise change any claims in the rest of the argument? Well, if the implicit premise states:

    Implicit premise: Logic is taken to be true

    Then when some claim P is perfectly supported by logic, we can no longer say "P is absolutely true." Instead, we can only say "P is taken to be true."

    Therefore, all claims (including logical axioms and logical rules) are unknown with respect to absolute truth, and they are only "taken to be true" relatively to logic.

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

    But there is an infinite regression problem here. Note below:

    By expressing the logical claim that "Logic is taken to be true." I am logically also saying that "it is taken to be true that logic is taken to be true."

    But by claiming that, I am saying that "it is taken to be true that it is taken to be true that it is taken to be true that logic is taken to be true."

    etc... etc...

    But it's not really a problem, since no matter how many times we recurse, it doesn't logically lead to a contradiction. This is also the same as the previous implicit premise. Check it out:

    Logic is absolutely true.
    It is absolutely true that logic is absolutely true.
    It is absolutely true that it is absolutely true that logic is absolutely true.
    etc...

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

    It seems that all the objections raised previously by either Apok or Clive are no longer a problem. At the moment, I didn't bother to go through all the previous posts (including related ones made in other threads). I remember that most of the objections circled around the idea that it's a self-defeating claim. Well, after the change of implicit premise, it most certainly isn't anymore.

    I am confident that any other objections that was once raised regarding this notion will probably also be resolved by this change of implicit premise. If you remember one that cannot be resolved, please do bring it up.

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

    Ah, but are you not outraged? Do you not feel like shouting at me the words: "How dare you change my concept of logic!! What gives you the right to change the rules of logic itself?"

    To that, my response is simple. What right do you have to prevent me from changing the laws of logic? How dare you say I cannot change the concept of logic itself?

    Any resulting argument is meaningless. Basically, you hold the idea that logic is absolute, and that this idea is built into the logic system itself. I hold the idea that logic is assumed, "taken as true," and that my idea is built into the logic system itself. This is what we disagree on - the truth of logic. Problem is, if our rules of logic differs, we have nothing else to appeal to for authority. You might say that most people in the world agrees with your idea, but you don't have the statistic support (at hand), and even if you do, I can say to you that appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy.

    You might want to appeal to pragmatism, in which case I will also tell you that it is also a logical fallacy. However, even if not for the fallacy, you still don't have a case.

    What can we use to check the practicality of a logic system? Well, two things mainly: consistency and strength of persuasion. For consistency, I win, since I have shown that my system of logic is more internally consistent than yours. Under your assumption, my perfect proof leads to a contradiction, yet under my assumption, it doesn't. On the other hand, for strength of persuasion, I submit that your appeal to absolute truth is probably greater than my appeal to truth as known by human knowledge. However, the difference of strength in terms of everyday usage... negligible.

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

    I re-read Apok's first post in this topic, and understood it a bit more. Of course, there still exists lots of things that are not defined clearly, with the most central being: "what constitutes right reason?" If I be critical, I can still ask the hell out of that post. However, intuitively, I do know what constitutes right reason and I think it's the same as most people's idea of what right reason is.

    And this change of implicit premise seems to be in the spirit of "reason looking at itself to see how good reason works."

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

    So, if you disagree with me, you have three options:

    1) Somehow show that my proof contains some problems with its premises and/or its use of logical rules.
    2) Somehow show that my new logical system still cause my proof to lead to a contradiction.
    3) Somehow show that my new logical system is inferior to your logical system (i.e. the logical system assumed at the beginning of this post).

    If you cannot do any of these, then to be intellectually honest, you must submit to my new logical system, where the implicit premise is that logic is "taken to be true" instead of "absolutely true." A corollary of this is that you must also submit that absolute truth cannot be known.

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

    Well, there it is. At the moment this sounds like a gold nugget to me, but there's always the possibility that I have overlooked something. If I have, please point it out. It might be pouring cold water, but it must be done, if I want to be intellectually honest.

    Anyway, it's late, and reading week is over. I gotta get to bed. Good night!

    FDEL

    Edit: P.S. I could not find the edit button on my last post, hence the double post. However, this post being a new post also seems fitting, considering its content.
    Last edited by FDEL; February 25th, 2008 at 08:40 AM.

  16. #36
    Grapevine805
    Guest

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    I don't see this answered elsewhere in the thread, so here ya go:

    You would ask him, "If I were to ask your brother which road to take, what would his answer be?"

    If you were talking to the brother who always told a lie, he'd lie, saying the opposite road of what his brother would say.

    If you were talking to the brother who always told the truth, he'd say what his brother would say, which would be a lie, thereby also naming the wrong road.

    So no matter what was said, you'd take the opposite road.

    Ta da!

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Noone has debated you yet Fdel? No wonder you were eager to discuss logic in private.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    First, Let us agree that any use of logic requires an implicit premise[horse-I refuse] - that logic is true. True to what extend? Well, that's what we're about to discuss. In the beginning, we're going to assume what Clive would probably say, that logic is absolutely true. (all truth is absolute truth)

    Here, I submit a logical proof that humans cannot know absolute truth.

    Implicit Premise: Logic is absolutely true (all logical proofs require this premise)

    Point1: Human knowledge (the set of all things humans know) is finite.

    Point2: Humans can only know things within human knowledge. (If humans knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know)

    Point3: Absolute truth is not limited to human knowledge. (Absolute truth may or may not be inside the set of all things humans know)

    Point4: If absolute truth is within human knowledge, then humans can know it. If absolute truth is outside human knowledge, then humans cannot know it.

    Point5: By Point3, we do not know which possibility is the case in Point4, therefore we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth.

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

    Although you will not be able to find any disagreeable premises or misused logical rule in the above argument, you still see a contradiction between my result and the implicit premise.
    Heartily disagreed, point five is a load of induction. Induction is fallacy. Fallacy can lead to contradiction.


    Logic is absolutely true.
    It is absolutely true that logic is absolutely true.
    It is absolutely true that it is absolutely true that logic is absolutely true.
    etc...
    Is a case of infinite regression like this actually an issue, or pleading?
    For example [T] is Absolute truth, that we are not privy to:
    [T] is absolute truth, it is absolute truth that [T] is absolute truth (and so on)
    Does that make [T] NOT absolute truth?


    It seems that all the objections raised previously by either Apok or Clive are no longer a problem. At the moment, I didn't bother to go through all the previous posts (including related ones made in other threads). I remember that most of the objections circled around the idea that it's a self-defeating claim. Well, after the change of implicit premise, it most certainly isn't anymore.
    Self defeating? Self defining. Logic is eternally valid regardless of new input. New input is a change in premise. A change in premise invalidates old logic. Logic itself does not change.

    To that, my response is simple. What right do you have to prevent me from changing the laws of logic? How dare you say I cannot change the concept of logic itself?
    You can not, without being incorrect. The concept of logic only matters when communicated properly. If I called logic "abortions," I could use abortions to show myself correct, but people would be uneasy when I communicate about my abortion skills. Your change in definition removes meaning from the symbol, and this makes communication difficult.

    So, if you disagree with me, you have three options:

    1) Somehow show that my proof contains some problems with its premises and/or its use of logical rules.
    2) Somehow show that my new logical system still cause my proof to lead to a contradiction.
    3) Somehow show that my new logical system is inferior to your logical system (i.e. the logical system assumed at the beginning of this post).
    1. I did it
    2. You did it
    3. I did it

    My closing argument:
    Your logical procession, deductively, ends with:
    Humans access to absolute truth may be limited.
    Rewritten, we may not know everything, but that does not mean we can not define certain facts as absolutely true (something exists).
    Unfortunately, our access to absolute truth is primarily binary logic.

    Any invalidation of logic is indication of faulty premises.
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Okay, I wrote that post a long time ago and I know it has flaws in it. I have a revised version with the flaws taken out, but I didn't post it because:

    a) I lost my ability to edit my original post when I finished the revised version
    b) If I posted it again it would be a double post
    c) I don't really think the people who used to post here (if I remember correctly it was Clive) would be interested to continue that topic given the situation at the time.

    And no, I was not eager to discuss it in private. You were the one who specifically ASKED me to discuss it in private. It's perfectly fine for me to debate in public, so please do not make assumptions like that.

    Heartily disagreed, point five is a load of induction. Induction is fallacy. Fallacy can lead to contradiction.
    Please show me exactly why that's an induction fallacy, and how it is fallacious.

    Is a case of infinite regression like this actually an issue, or pleading?
    For example [T] is Absolute truth, that we are not privy to:
    [T] is absolute truth, it is absolute truth that [T] is absolute truth (and so on)
    Does that make [T] NOT absolute truth?
    If you understood my post you will see that what you've just questioned is totally irrelevant.

    My post says that it's fine to have an infinite chain as long as it isn't contradictory.

    "It is absolute truth that T is absolute truth" chain is infinite and non-contradictory.

    Therefore it's fine.

    Self defeating? Self defining. Logic is eternally valid regardless of new input. New input is a change in premise. A change in premise invalidates old logic. Logic itself does not change.
    First, you do not support this claim that you are making.

    Second, what you're saying really has nothing to do with with the "self-defeating" concept used in the context of my previous post. Read the previous discussion and you will see exactly which argument was considered to be self-defeating. If you understood that, then you need to provide more detail and elaborate your points because right now this quote above is very difficult to understand (with respect to the big picture of your position).

    You can not, without being incorrect. The concept of logic only matters when communicated properly. If I called logic "abortions," I could use abortions to show myself correct, but people would be uneasy when I communicate about my abortion skills. Your change in definition removes meaning from the symbol, and this makes communication difficult.
    Why does that make it incorrect.
    Who defines what is correct, you?

    Nothing about logic is changed, except for the implied premise. It's still called logic. We still use logic in the same way. The only thing changed is some tiny little aspect that people don't think about until you get an ultimate skeptic in the scene. Hence, there will be no problems communicating ideas and solving problems with logic.

    1. I did it
    2. You did it
    3. I did it
    1. Saying "Ooo your argument is fallaaaacious!!!" without highlighting exactly how it is doesn't exactly mean you've proven anything. You claim that I'm making an induction fallacy. I don't think I am. Explain yourself (you should have done that the moment you claimed I had an induction fallacy).

    2 and 3. With regard to my new logic, you've done the following:

    -Claim that my logic is incorrect
    -Claim that my logic impedes communication

    You did not support the first point, and I've shown the second point to be incorrect. So, you have not achieved 2 and 3.

    Unfortunately, our access to absolute truth is primarily binary logic.
    Says who? You?

    Any invalidation of logic is indication of faulty premises.
    Says who? You?

    My closing point:

    Stop dictating dogma like "logic cannot be blah" or "logic is absolute blah." If you make that kind of claim, you have to support it in a convincing way!

    I've bolded all the claims you've made that you did not support, but rather preached in a dogmatic way. Please support them in a convincing manner.

    Also, for future references, it is a good idea in debate to not assume that the opponent knows what you are saying. It is always good to provide detailed elaboration of your points, and also answers to potential rebuttals your opponent might make. This way, communication is made more efficient and we make quicker progress in sharing ideas.

    Edit: I apologize if the above post sounds stern or even sarcastic at times. I am a bit agitated and I hope you can understand why (support your claims! lol).

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    Please show me exactly why that's an induction fallacy, and how it is fallacious.
    Is the fact that you could not refute my claim outright, directly, and easily not enough proof that you used induction?

    Because you are unsure if we can or can not perceive absolute truth, we logically conclude that we can not?

    If you changed the premise to "humans can not know Absolute Truth" then the conclusion would be supported by the premises, but I would then argue the premises.
    If you understood my post you will see that what you've just questioned is totally irrelevant.
    Misunderstood, quite irrelevant.

    First, you do not support this claim that you are making.
    All of your arguments hinge on a change in premise, none of which invalidates logic on any level. Your claim of "because: magic" is not superior to my stance of logic is a tool with premises as input and conclusions as output. If premises are wrong, conclusions might also be wrong.

    Imagine a pile of apples. They are apples, not oranges.
    Law of Identity: X = X

    A god-being takes one from the pile and explains to you that it is an orange (because of human-imperceptible quality O, which all and only oranges have),
    Law of Non-contradiction: X =\= ~X

    but the rest are not apples either, but something else.
    Law of the Secluded Middle: X or ~X

    Using our logic, by the end of the day, X = ~X = Y =\= ~Y

    However, logic itself was never invalidated, only the premises used as input, and thus (possibly) the conclusions as output.

    Why does that make it incorrect.
    Who defines what is correct, you?

    Nothing about logic is changed, except for the implied premise. It's still called logic. We still use logic in the same way. The only thing changed is some tiny little aspect that people don't think about until you get an ultimate skeptic in the scene. Hence, there will be no problems communicating ideas and solving problems with logic.
    Am I being mocked by my implied point? You claim to have changed the concept of logic, but you did not. Logic is a way to remove fallacy from claims. To change this concept would cause you to be incorrect. All you changed was a symbol.


    1. Saying "Ooo your argument is fallaaaacious!!!" without highlighting exactly how it is doesn't exactly mean you've proven anything. You claim that I'm making an induction fallacy. I don't think I am. Explain yourself (you should have done that the moment you claimed I had an induction fallacy).
    My apologies, I consider induction quite obvious (at least once indicated). I am sorry I am unable to explain the process that led to your induction, but I did offer the deductive end to your procession. You must have stopped reading, the section after what you quoted supported it. Since this seems unsatisfactory, I can try to elaborate. I avoided in depth originally expecting intellectual honesty and trying to avoid the "know/perceive" issue.

    The ambiguous "Human Knowledge" troubled me because of the difference between "knowing" and "capable of knowing." I found each might have some implied meaning, disguised as a poorly expressed message.

    Point1: Human knowledge (the set of all things humans know) is finite.
    It is finite in description, but not necessarily in nature. What I mean is that it is growing or changing, and as such not limited in that respect. If you meant that which humans are able to perceive is finite, we are able to measure, describe, and predict that which is imperceptible to us using technology, so perception is also not finite as if limited, but simply as an alternative to being infinite (illogical).
    Message: Human knowledge can not be infinite, by definition.
    Meaning: Human perception is limited.
    Revision: Direct human cognition of perception is limited.

    Point2: Humans can only know things within human knowledge. (If humans knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know)
    This language is very murky. At face value, "knows" appears to have an accidental 's.' This sounds too restrictive, or as if you are alluding to things humans in general are able to perceive.
    Maybe you meant "If a human knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know," and this makes more sense. It does, however conflict with the portion outside parenthesis.
    Message: We can only learn things that humans know.
    Meaning: There is some parameter for what input is acquirable by humans.
    Revised: Humans can only understand within human cognition.


    Point3: Absolute truth is not limited to human knowledge. (Absolute truth may or may not be inside the set of all things humans know).
    Again, I am confused, knowing or capable of knowing? Regardless, this is obviously induction. Without knowing all we are capable of knowing we can not assume limits on human knowledge (other than it certainly is not infinite). Alternatively, the induction lies in assuming there is something outside our perception to participate in [AT].
    Message: Some things are certainly beyond our grasp.
    meaning: There might be that which we do not know of.
    Revised: Absolute Truth might supersede human cognition, but we can not satisfactorily conclude that anything supersedes human cognition.

    Point4: If absolute truth is within human knowledge, then humans can know it. If absolute truth is outside human knowledge, then humans cannot know it.
    This seems agreeable, though the second clause would be more accurate if written "know all of it."

    Point5: By Point3, we do not know which possibility is the case in Point4, therefore we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth.
    More induction. Though I agree with your conclusion (we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth), you did not arrive at it logically.
    Message: When facing uncertainty, a definite answer is usually a good idea.
    Revised: Removed, 3&4 are fallacious and thus, not useful premises to draw valid conclusions.
    2 and 3. With regard to my new logic, you've done the following:

    -Claim that my logic is incorrect
    -Claim that my logic impedes communication
    I claim neither of these, and am utterly baffled.
    Point two: Your conclusion is illogical because it is not adequately supported by the premises.
    Point three: Yours must be inferior (even though all it has had is a name change) because mine showed your induction.
    You did not support the first point, and I've shown the second point to be incorrect. So, you have not achieved 2 and 3.
    First, I did support my first point, but at the time I felt quoting and indicating your induction qualified.
    I never claimed to achieve number two. I understood only one of the three had to be accomplished, and you had this covered before I arrived.
    As for three, just for the sake of argument, my logic system is superior because it does not appeal to popularity. That is a fallacy.


    Says who? You?
    This came up twice.

    Admit this is an implied claim before I respond.


    Stop dictating dogma like "logic cannot be blah" or "logic is absolute blah." If you make that kind of claim, you have to support it in a convincing way!
    You offer no support for logics invalidity. I offer support for your logic's invalidity.
    Double standard.
    I've bolded all the claims you've made that you did not support, but rather preached in a dogmatic way. Please support them in a convincing manner.
    They amused me quite a bit. I could say a few more words on logic.

    Although it is commonly misunderstood that logic is the way to arrive at Truth, logic is actually used to reveal that which is not true. Logic, in essence, is our tool for identifying fallacy. It is possible, however, to arrive at truth, with binary logic. If we can determine one option to be false, the other is true. Careful application is necessary.

    Finally,
    Logic is infallible.
    It is only a medium.
    Premise in, conclusion out.
    If the premises are true and complete, the conclusion is as well
    I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Yes, lots and lots of text! I'm happy already

    Is the fact that you could not refute my claim outright, directly, and easily not enough proof that you used induction?

    Because you are unsure if we can or can not perceive absolute truth, we logically conclude that we can not?

    If you changed the premise to "humans can not know Absolute Truth" then the conclusion would be supported by the premises, but I would then argue the premises.
    First, don't claim that "I am unsure." Let's let my logic do the talking. What you're saying is that the following two points in my claims:

    -We cannot know absolute truth.
    -We do not know whether humans know absolute truth.

    ...are inconsistent, for certainly if we cannot know absolute truth, then we don't know absolute truth, and hence we do know whether humans know absolute truth - we know we don't know.

    Though, this inconsistency only exists if you misunderstand the scope of the two points above.

    By logic, we know that it is logically true that humans cannot know absolute truth. As in, by authority of logic, we assume it to be true that humans cannot know absolute truth.

    By logic, we do not know whether it is absolutely true that humans know absolute truth. As in, by authority of logic, although we assume it to be true that humans cannot know absolute truth, we do not know whether it is absolutely true.

    Realize that by changing the implicit premise from "logic is absolutely true" to "logic is taken to be true," logic now no longer claims to know anything about absolute truth. Hence, what is logical doesn't necessarily have to be true, and because of this, logic can claim what it considers to be logically true, to not be absolutely true.

    Of course, I still have no clue whether your claim that my argument for uncertainty is invalid, is valid. Let's read on.

    All of your arguments hinge on a change in premise, none of which invalidates logic on any level. Your claim of "because: magic" is not superior to my stance of logic is a tool with premises as input and conclusions as output. If premises are wrong, conclusions might also be wrong.
    What invalidates the absolute-truth version of logic in my argument is my argument for uncertainty. The change in premise is what fixes this. The change in premise is not supposed to invalidate logic. Geez!

    I don't disagree that logic is a tool with premises as input and conclusions as output.

    I don't disagree that if premises are wrong, conclusions might also be wrong.

    What I disagree is if you claim that the tool itself (logic) is always absolutely perfectly right, valid, truth, etc... Because that causes my "argument for uncertainty" to contradict even though the premises and use of logic do not appear to be wrong.

    Imagine a pile of apples. They are apples, not oranges.
    Law of Identity: X = X

    A god-being takes one from the pile and explains to you that it is an orange (because of human-imperceptible quality O, which all and only oranges have),
    Law of Non-contradiction: X =\= ~X

    but the rest are not apples either, but something else.
    Law of the Secluded Middle: X or ~X

    Using our logic, by the end of the day, X = ~X = Y =\= ~Y

    However, logic itself was never invalidated, only the premises used as input, and thus (possibly) the conclusions as output.
    Do you know why that happens? It's because the god-being is still explaining it to us in logical terms. If logic is invalidated at a higher level of consciousness, then I would imagine that level of consciousness would probably never cross paths with humans, because beings of such consciousness would not understand humans, and humans would not understand such consciousness. There's no common language or common experience.

    You've tried to present a situation where logic is invalidated. However, the situation that you've presented still has valid logic.

    Am I being mocked by my implied point? You claim to have changed the concept of logic, but you did not. Logic is a way to remove fallacy from claims. To change this concept would cause you to be incorrect. All you changed was a symbol.
    First, try not to have any implied points. Make everything as explicit as possible.

    I didn't change the concept of logic. I changed the implicit premise. I changed logic's judgment of itself. I changed the way we perceive logic's absolute validity. None of these has anything to do with the core concepts of logic - processing input and generating output that is just as logically valid as the inputs. However, I changed the connection between what is logical and what is absolute truth, and I don't think this is "just a symbol."

    My apologies, I consider induction quite obvious (at least once indicated). I am sorry I am unable to explain the process that led to your induction, but I did offer the deductive end to your procession. You must have stopped reading, the section after what you quoted supported it. Since this seems unsatisfactory, I can try to elaborate. I avoided in depth originally expecting intellectual honesty and trying to avoid the "know/perceive" issue.
    I didn't stop reading. The following were my mental processes as I went through the last bit of your post:

    Quote Originally Posted by quote1 of last bit
    My closing argument:
    Your logical procession, deductively, ends with:
    Humans access to absolute truth may be limited.
    Rewritten, we may not know everything, but that does not mean we can not define certain facts as absolutely true (something exists).
    Yes, and what's wrong with this, exactly?
    Quote Originally Posted by quote2 of last bit
    Unfortunately, our access to absolute truth is primarily binary logic.
    This is what you see as a problem.

    Which is why I only quoted the "quote2 of last bit" above. Certainly, quote2 certainly conflicts with quote1, but quote 1 follows from logic (as I've shown), while quote 2 is arbitrary, which is why I've bolded the quote2 part and asked you to support it.

    The ambiguous "Human Knowledge" troubled me because of the difference between "knowing" and "capable of knowing." I found each might have some implied meaning, disguised as a poorly expressed message.
    Ah, so this is what you've meant. I agree. This is the reason why I consider that post to have flaws. So, with respect to that post, I concede. However, I do believe that these flaws causes that post to be a poor representation of my position. Let me try to agree with or clarify the revisions you've made.

    Point1: Human knowledge (the set of all things humans know) is finite.
    It is finite in description, but not necessarily in nature. What I mean is that it is growing or changing, and as such not limited in that respect. If you meant that which humans are able to perceive is finite, we are able to measure, describe, and predict that which is imperceptible to us using technology, so perception is also not finite as if limited, but simply as an alternative to being infinite (illogical).
    Message: Human knowledge can not be infinite, by definition.
    Meaning: Human perception is limited.
    Revision: Direct human cognition of perception is limited.
    Sure, that sounds fair.

    Point2: Humans can only know things within human knowledge. (If humans knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know)
    This language is very murky. At face value, "knows" appears to have an accidental 's.' This sounds too restrictive, or as if you are alluding to things humans in general are able to perceive.
    Maybe you meant "If a human knows x, then x belongs inside the set of all things humans know," and this makes more sense. It does, however conflict with the portion outside parenthesis.
    Message: We can only learn things that humans know.
    Meaning: There is some parameter for what input is acquirable by humans.
    Revised: Humans can only understand within human cognition.
    I apologize for the poor grammar. I try to look for these things but sometimes I miss them.

    I disagree with your interpretation here. What I originally meant is that humans can only know things within human knowledge.

    Suppose you have just learned a new thing that nobody else knows. The moment you learned that new thing, human knowledge also increases by the same amount as you have learned. If X is something you know, and you are a human, then by definition X is also something inside the set of all things humans know. Changes in X over time translates to changes in human knowledge over time.

    But the important thing to realize here is that although human knowledge isn't constant over time, it remains to be finite.

    So far, we have not talked at all about the limit of what humans can know, except for the premise that human knowledge (what humans know) at any point in time is finite, and thus a possible corollary is that what humans can know is finite.

    Point3: Absolute truth is not limited to human knowledge. (Absolute truth may or may not be inside the set of all things humans know).
    Again, I am confused, knowing or capable of knowing? Regardless, this is obviously induction. Without knowing all we are capable of knowing we can not assume limits on human knowledge (other than it certainly is not infinite). Alternatively, the induction lies in assuming there is something outside our perception to participate in [AT].
    Message: Some things are certainly beyond our grasp.
    meaning: There might be that which we do not know of.
    Revised: Absolute Truth might supersede human cognition, but we can not satisfactorily conclude that anything supersedes human cognition.
    "Knowing" and "Capable of knowing" are the same thing, since "capable of knowing" is basically "knowing" that happens at some point in a potential future.

    "There is a limit on human knowledge" naturally follows from the first premise that the set of things humans know at any point in time is finite. An elaboration of this is that: given any point in time, the set of all things can be divided into two parts - the proper subset that contains only all things that humans know, and the proper subset that contains the things humans do not know.

    What point 3 basically says is that absolute truth is not limited by any set, and hence might be in either.

    Point4: If absolute truth is within human knowledge, then humans can know it. If absolute truth is outside human knowledge, then humans cannot know it.
    This seems agreeable, though the second clause would be more accurate if written "know all of it."
    True. I was treating absolute truth as a singular thing when that's not the case. Thanks for correcting. I really should have said "know all of it."

    Point5: By Point3, we do not know which possibility is the case in Point4, therefore we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth.
    More induction. Though I agree with your conclusion (we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth), you did not arrive at it logically.
    Message: When facing uncertainty, a definite answer is usually a good idea.
    Revised: Removed, 3&4 are fallacious and thus, not useful premises to draw valid conclusions.
    Point 3 establishes that:

    suppose absolute truth X
    X can be in either set: the set of only all things known by humans, or the set of things humans do not know.

    Point 4 establishes that:

    If the former, then humans know absolute truth X
    If the latter, then humans do not know absolute truth X

    This point basically says that:

    Since X can be in either set, then we don't know which is the case in point 4, hence we don't know if we know absolute truth X. (Position of uncertainty)

    All this rests on the premise that human knowledge (at any point in time) is finite. However, you don't seem to be disagreeing with this.

    I claim neither of these, and am utterly baffled.
    You claimed that my logic has a fallacy, so you at least claimed the first one. It turned out you are right.

    You also claimed the second one. See the latter half of the 4th quote in my last post.

    First, I did support my first point, but at the time I felt quoting and indicating your induction qualified.
    I never claimed to achieve number two. I understood only one of the three had to be accomplished, and you had this covered before I arrived.
    Sorry, I should have said "2 or 3".

    In your last post, you did not support your first point. However, you did in this post.

    In your last post, you did not show how I achieved number two. However, you did in this post.

    As for three, just for the sake of argument, my logic system is superior because it does not appeal to popularity. That is a fallacy.
    Not quite. The only difference between my logic system and yours is that you assume logic to be absolute truth, while mine doesn't. This difference does not cause mine to appeal to popularity.

    "Appeal to popularity" happened in my original post to establish the weight of authority of logic. In which case I'm not saying "logic is logically true because more people agree with it." I'm saying "logic is embraced and used because people agree with it."

    So, at the very least, your logic and my logic are equal, arguably yours is better because it has a stronger authority (to absolute truth), but it will no longer be when the bugs and inconsistencies of that proof is worked out.

    This came up twice.

    Admit this is an implied claim before I respond.
    Because I was a bit agitated since you seem to put down dogmatic claims without support, lol.

    You offer no support for logics invalidity. I offer support for your logic's invalidity.
    Double standard.
    In your last post, you did not establish anything regarding my argument because you claimed a bunch of things without proper support (it's not a good idea to assume people knows what you are saying because often people don't). However, in this post you've supported them and all is well again. You've supported your claim that my argument was faulty. You have not supported your claim that logic is access to absolute truth. However, the fact that you've done the former means you no longer have to do the latter until I fix my argument, lol.

    They amused me quite a bit. I could say a few more words on logic.

    Although it is commonly misunderstood that logic is the way to arrive at Truth, logic is actually used to reveal that which is not true. Logic, in essence, is our tool for identifying fallacy. It is possible, however, to arrive at truth, with binary logic. If we can determine one option to be false, the other is true. Careful application is necessary.
    I would perfectly agree with you if you did not use the word "true" but rather the word "consistent." "True" by itself is a vague word, and I think you already know my response if you add some modifiers to it.

    Lastly, let me remind you that although my argument was flawed, you gave effort in fixing the argument, and in response I attempted to clarify. The end result is a new argument that has gotten rid of its old flaws. So my original challenge still stands - please show that the argument is still flawed. If it isn't, then my position with a new argument is now stronger, and not weaker.

    Anyway, off to sleep. See ya!

    P.S. This post (that I've just replied to) is awesome! You should write like this more often.

 

 
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •