GENIUS FORUMS

Logic, the art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding..which leads us to certain conclusions. This is pretty obvious.

All men are mortal,
socrates is a man,
socrates is mortal.

But through logic alone, we can't investigate any of these premises independently, it can't tell us anything specific about the world, logic only allows us to move in a certain way across assumptions.

Even if we use symbols. Its still a hopeless tool. For example the rather dull equality of A=B

1.All A are equal to B
2. B
3. therefore A

Even in this case, logic can't tell us if these premises are true, are all A equal to B? We will never know.
B. really? is there a B? we can argue forever about it.
Therefore A, assuming 1 and 2. Which we can never know.

So what has logic done for us? What has it told us about the world we live in? Nothing really, but it can lead us to certain conclusions once we make assumptions. And so can illogic and pure rhetoric and so can a predetermined mental bias. Neat.

So why use logic? Is there a logical reason or basis for it? No, there can be no logical reason to use this tool, any sort of reason to justify it would have to be circular, and logic isn't a fan of circular arguments, plus all its premises would always be assumptions anyway. Yawn.

I'm not saying its bad, or wrong, I like it and use it often, but it is only a little tool. =]

Why does it always work, though? Have you figured that one out, yet?

All right, Trevor, I'll bite. What sort of work does logic do? What is its yield, result, harvest?

average wrote:Logic, the art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding..which leads us to certain conclusions. This is pretty obvious.

All men are mortal,
socrates is a man,
socrates is mortal.

But through logic alone, we can't investigate any of these premises independently, it can't tell us anything specific about the world, logic only allows us to move in a certain way across assumptions.

But don't we get those assumptions from observing the world? Therefore, isn't our logic a reflection of the relationships appearances have to other appearances?

Even if we use symbols. Its still a hopeless tool. For example the rather dull equality of A=B

1.All A are equal to B
2. B
3. therefore A

Even in this case, logic can't tell us if these premises are true, are all A equal to B? We will never know.

I don't see your point. 'A' and 'B' are invented symbols. They don't exist as some phenomena to be observed empirically. Furthermore, that the two symbols are different imply that they are not the same as each other. If they were the same as each other, then there would be no need to express them as two different symbols. So it looks like you are making a logical error, at least according to how I conceive of logic.

So what has logic done for us? Nothing really

So you don't think logic has anything to do with your ability to go into the fridge and get fresh food, or connect to people all around the world via the internet?

So why use logic? Is there a logical reason or basis for it? No, there can be no logical reason to use this tool

Ok, I agree with that.

Logic is an important tool. However, due to intrinsic limitations, it cannot be used as a final arbiter of ultimate truth. I think that is the point.

Cory Duchesne wrote: But don't we get those assumptions from observing the world? Therefore, isn't our logic a reflection of the relationships appearance has to other appearance?

We confirm those assumptions by observing the world, which is a tricky empirical matter, and beyond the scope of any logical system.

I don't see your point. 'A' and 'B' are invented symbols. They don't exist as some phenomena to be observed empirically. Furthermore, that the two symbols are different imply that they are not the same as each other. If they were the same as each other, then there would be no need to express them as two different symbols. So it looks like you are making a logical error, at least according to how I conceive of logic.

A and B can represent a variety of things, the fact that there is an equality between them and that they are different letters is no error at all. For example, A could be chair (english), while B could be chaise (french). Or how Mark Twain is equal to Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Or what have you...
Of course these claims are all based on assumptions we can't really know for sure, but we can take them for granted and then use logic to bounce around then and reason about them in a certain way.

So you don't think logic has anything to do with your ability to go into the fridge and get fresh food, or connect to people all around the world via the internet?

Getting fresh food is an empirical matter based on appearances, not logic.

Doesn't really matter how much logic the programmers used to make the internet, it was all the same form I described above...And I'm sure there was plenty of logic in the math and programming of software/hardware for the internet, I'm not denying it has practical applications, but at the same time many assumptions and empirical observations were used as well.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: But don't we get those assumptions from observing the world? Therefore, isn't our logic a reflection of the relationships appearance has to other appearance?

We confirm those assumptions by observing the world

I'd say in many cases it is actually the other way around. Our assumptions are the effect of observing the world.

We confirm those assumptions by observing the world which is a tricky empirical matter, and beyond the scope of any logical system.

What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

I don't see your point. 'A' and 'B' are invented symbols. They don't exist as some phenomena to be observed empirically. Furthermore, that the two symbols are different imply that they are not the same as each other. If they were the same as each other, then there would be no need to express them as two different symbols. So it looks like you are making a logical error, at least according to how I conceive of logic.

A and B can represent a variety of things, the fact that there is an equality between them and that they are different letters is no error at all. For example, A could be chair (english), while B could be chaise (french).

Ok, I see what you mean, fine. So what's the big deal.

"Chair = Chaise"

What is so confusing about that?

Or how Mark Twain is equal to Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Or what have you...

This is a bit different than the chair example, because in that example we were referring to synonymous symbols, which are abstract concepts that we invent. Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens on the other hand are empirical objects who we define based on how they appear to us, and according to logic as I conceive of it, we know them based on the recorded appearances of their actions and words, which appear to come from a relatively small sample of their lives. Therefore, to say that they are equal to each other is based on what? Based on what we do know about them, are they not defined differently? And are not those definitions based on empirical facts about them? Surely they are different men, with different lives. Therefore, if we define them as distinct entities, they are not equal to each other.

Of course these claims are all based on assumptions we can't really know for sure

Well, if you are with your French friends and they agree with you when you refer to the chair as a chaise, then you can be certain that, when socializing with other members of the culture shared by your friends, that alternative word for chair, chaise, is indeed the correct one.

So you don't think logic has anything to do with your ability to go into the fridge and get fresh food, or connect to people all around the world via the internet?

Getting fresh food is an empirical matter based on appearances, not logic.

Designing the unique conditions where getting access to food is relatively easier, more consistent and secure than it was in the past is indeed an accomplishment of logic as well as astute empirical observation. Logic is vital if we are to reason about empirical appearances in a way where we invent things like agriculture, refrigerators and computers.

Doesn't really matter how much logic the programmers used to make the internet, it was all the same form I described above...

I don't see how the factor of empirical observation detracts from the value of logic. What would empirical observation be without logic?

And I'm sure there was plenty of logic in the math and programming of software/hardware for the internet, I'm not denying it has practical applications, but at the same time many assumptions and empirical observations were used as well.

Alright, so I guess your point is that logic, without having a relationship to empirical observation, appearances, doesn't really do anything important? Well, that goes both ways. Empirical observation of appearances is pretty useless when you can't logically reason about them, don't you think?

All right, Trevor, I'll bite. What sort of work does logic do? What is its yield, result, harvest?

A study of the nature of logic shows that it is necessarily transcendent. It must be true, or else nothing (and everything) is. This is more than simply a moral claim: it is ontological; and even more than that, it is the basis of all ontology.

If a person is to believe in anything whatsoever (which includes believing that some things are false), he must believe that logic is transcendental. It defines the nature of all of reality. The necessary belief for all thinking beings is that for anything to exist at all, it must exist in a logical framework.

From this, we can actually exclude things from existence, merely on the basis of thinking about their definitions. Anything that contradicts itself must not -- cannot -- exist. As such, we can make negative claims.

But, from these negative claims, we can also make positive claims: anything that would contradict itself by not existing must exist. Thus, by studying logic, we can establish what in reality must exist, and what cannot.

The meat and bulk of philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) is concerned entirely with figuring out exactly what is logically necessary. All that's really left over when this work is done is ethics -- dessert.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:A study of the nature of logic shows that it is necessarily transcendent. It must be true, or else nothing (and everything) is. This is more than simply a moral claim: it is ontological; and even more than that, it is the basis of all ontology.

So, you're saying logic must be true, or nothing is. It is a belief with which I agree, that logic the base law of existence, so to speak. This belief can be tested, within our limits. Yes, there is an order to things, which reveals itself upon this testing.

If a person is to believe in anything whatsoever (which includes believing that some things are false), he must believe that logic is transcendental. It defines the nature of all of reality. The necessary belief for all thinking beings is that for anything to exist at all, it must exist in a logical framework.

I agree. A thinking person would reach this conclusion.

From this, we can actually exclude things from existence, merely on the basis of thinking about their definitions. Anything that contradicts itself must not -- cannot -- exist. As such, we can make negative claims.

But, from these negative claims, we can also make positive claims: anything that would contradict itself by not existing must exist. Thus, by studying logic, we can establish what in reality must exist, and what cannot.

Now we are attempting to define what this logical system actually consists of, and this puts us onto somewhat shaky ground. That is because our observable reality is so small. We can make reasonable suppositions about it, but any attempt to extrapolate to the whole, leaves us with at best gross generalizations, such as "everything is caused (except, of course, the Totality itself) (which, arguably, is not a thing...).

Example of this is the issue of freewill. The argument for no freewill works on the local level, but does not allow for changes of rules at another level. Philosophy as I have become aware of it does not even allow for other levels of reality. It's all the same, reality, from one end to the other. That's how some people purport to know the Ultimate. The concept itself seems ridiculous to me. Hilarious, in fact. That's what I mean by useful tool but, because of intrinsic limitations, not final arbiter.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

I'd say in many cases it is actually the other way around. Our assumptions are the effect of observing the world.

Sure, and vice versa.

What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

Designing the unique conditions where getting access to food is relatively easier, more consistent and secure than it was in the past is indeed an accomplishment of logic as well as astute empirical observation.


Logic is vital if we are to reason about empirical appearances in a way where we invent things like agriculture, refrigerators and computers.

No. and no.
The reasoning in these cases is all inductive and pretty much arbitrary.
The tools and techniques of agriculture, computer science, and refrigerators are based on observations and assumptions and follow no logical necessity at all.

I don't see how the factor of empirical observation detracts from the value of logic. What would empirical observation be without logic?

Empirical knowledge is uncertain, inductive, flimsy, soft. Logic is supposed to be certain, deductive, hard.
The two don't really go together, yet we try to fit them together.

Alright, so I guess your point is that logic, without having a relationship to empirical observation, appearances, doesn't really do anything important? Well, that goes both ways. Empirical observation of appearances is pretty useless when you can't logically reason about them, don't you think?

No. Our empirical observations don't depend on logic.
I see an apple, I grab it, I bite it, I eat it. Theres no logic there. Its just me appealing to my past experiences of apples and eating, satisfying hunger....but theres no logic here. Just because it seems that in the past apples have satisfied my hunger does not imply that they will now, or in the future.

We see smoke in our rooms, we smell it, we hear a crackling sound -- we assume theres a fire nearby, theres no logic here. Theres really no logic anywhere in the real world. Its only a little mental game, a tool we use to check arguments and propositions, check to see if they fall within our limits of understanding and misunderstanding.

But there can be no logical reason to use logic as a tool to gain knowledge. Its a preference really.

I just picked up Heidegger*, and I found a note of agreement with him that you may benefit from. Instead of considering Reality and Being to be large abstract concepts, considering them to simply be the most fundamental, basic, and concrete of concepts brings a lot more credibility to metaphysical study. That everything is caused, for instance, is not really a grand claim. It's just a quaint observation that everyone knows at a very elementary level. Think of a philosopher like a plumber. Although anyone can turn on a tap and get water out of it, only a plumber has the experience to fix a malfunction in the plumbing. If, for instance, someone has a leaky tap (they believe in, for instance, some metaphysically-based ethical system), it is a plumber's job to figure out exactly why the drip is there and how to fix it.

The obvious difference is that philosophers get stiffed. :)




*Heidegger has always come across as somewhat of an over-intellectual babbler, whose reckless egotism shows a inability to put philosophy into practise, and thus makes me doubt his wisdom. That Heidegger happily posed next to Hitler is actually a sufficient argument against believing him to have any wisdom whatsoever. That does not, however, disprove his ideas. It merely makes them highly suspect, as a man unable to put philosophy into practise can very easily miss simple mistakes, especially as his arguments get more complex.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

Can you give me an example?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

Can you give me an example?

yep.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

I disagree. It's not your 'previous experiences' that tell you: 'empirical judgments are tricky'.

'Empirical judgments are tricky' is a conclusion that you have reached by holding on to empirically untestable notions, which serve as premises.

1) the empirical world is comprised of the forms I perceive with my senses (an empirically untestable notion).
2) the empirical world is something that is always changing and revealing more than I knew yesterday, sometimes changing my conclusions
3) the empirical world is tricky.


So it's not, as you put it, your previous experiences that have lead you to the conclusion that 'the empirical world is tricky' - but rather, it's our trusty old friend, deductive logic.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

I disagree. It's not your 'previous experiences' that tell you: 'empirical judgments are tricky'.

'Empirical judgments are tricky' is a conclusion that you have reached by holding on to empirically untestable notions, which serve as premises.

1) the empirical world is comprised of the forms I perceive with my senses (an empirically untestable notion).
2) the empirical world is something that is always changing and revealing more than I knew yesterday, sometimes changing my conclusions
3) the empirical world is tricky.


So it's not, as you put it, your previous experiences that have lead you to the conclusion that 'the empirical world is tricky' - but rather, it's our trusty old friend, deductive logic.

#1 is irrelevant in this case.

#2 is an empirical observation that appeals to memory and not logic.

#3 is just a description of the change that is observed in premise #2.
So #1 and #3 are both superfluous.


So lets focus a bit on #2.
I know some of my previous judgments have been wrong because thats what my memory reveals to me. I remember making errors on math tests, and spelling, and getting facts mixed up...etc.
So based on these memories I assume that since I made wrong conclusions in the past I could be wrong in the present or future. So I say judgments are tricky to make.

But of course logic can't demonstrate any of this, because theres no reason to believe the future will be like the past. The jump from one assumption to the other is unsound. Its not logical to believe judgments are 'tricky' to make now just because you made errors in the past, anymore than there is reason to believe it will rain tomorrow because it rained yesterday.
So really, anyway you look at it, its not a deduction at all. No logic, just assumptions on top of assumptions. Get it?

Average,

Cory: What is informing you that the empirical matter 'is tricky'?

Average: Previous experiences, where my judgments haven't been very accurate.

Cory: Can you give me an example?

Average: I remember making errors on math tests, and spelling, and getting facts mixed up...etc.

So you don't see any significant difference between your judgment of how things appear to your senses in the present moment compared to studying information for a test and having inaccurate or false memories? I think there is a very significant difference.

Failure to memorize information you studied, or to incorrectly remember what you studied is different than Aristotle concluding that, because it appears to him as such, the earth is stationary.

In Aristotle's case, he is making an empirical judgment based on the data that is available to his senses. It has nothing to do with his ability to recall facts he memorized for a test. Likewise, in Galileo's case, he concludes, based on the data available to this senses, that the sun is not a perfect heavenly body as was previously believed. Because Galileo perceives black sun-spots, imperfections on what was formally regarded as a heavenly sphere without any blemish, he comes to a new definition of what the sun is.

Now, this new definition of what a sun is, is eventually taught in school. A students ability to remember the definition as it was taught in class says nothing about his ability to perceive with this senses, but rather, it bespeaks of his memory ability.

Average, I'm not sure if anyone has ever brought to your attention this distinction, but if you give it some more thought, I think you might find the world of numbers, facts, and the spelling of words is rather distinct from the empirical reality of sound, sight, smell, touch, etc.

In the case of a student studying for a test, he is not trying to perceive reality with his senses in an attempt to define it for himself. He is merely trying to memorize definitions that were created by other people who, perhaps unlike himself, made an effort to perceive the empirical world for themselves, and define it for themselves.

So based on these memories I assume that since I made wrong conclusions in the past

There's a difference between making wrong conclusions about what you perceive directly, and incorrectly remembering other peoples conclusions, which you studied simply for the sake of memorization, passing a test, etc.

I could be wrong in the present or future. So I say judgments are tricky to make.

I think you'd benefit from thinking about the difference between making judgments about what you are perceiving with your senses in the present moment, and merely remembering information you tried to memorize for a test.

But of course logic can't demonstrate any of this, because theres no reason to believe the future will be like the past.

^ That is very circular. Your original assertion was that the empirical is tricky. (I assume 'tricky' meaning that it's unpredictable, changeable).

So, when you say that there is no reason to believe the future will be like the past, it doesn't really seem like you are saying anything new. You've already told us that (e.g, the empirical world is tricky)

The jump from one assumption to the other is unsound.

I don't really see you making anything other than the one same assumption. You've simply dressed up your assumption in two different outfits.

Its not logical to believe judgments are 'tricky' to make now just because you made errors in the past anymore than there is reason to believe it will rain tomorrow because it rained yesterday.

But still, you are always very vulnerable to being tricked, aren't you? The rules could change at any moment. You have no way of knowing, do you?

So really, anyway you look at it, it's not a deduction at all.

I'm afraid it is.

1) You start off with the (empirically untestable) basic premise of there being manifestations, a sense of existing.
2) You have the (empirically untestable) notion that the totality of things eludes your senses capacity to account.
3) You thus deduce that you can't know the truth of the empirical world with certainty, as it is beyond ability of your senses to totally behold.

average wrote:So why use logic?

Because I'm logical.

Cory Duchesne wrote:...


I'm afraid it is.

1) You start off with the (empirically untestable) basic premise of there being manifestations, a sense of existing.
2) You have the (empirically untestable) notion that the totality of things eludes your senses capacity to account.
3) You thus deduce that you can't know the truth of the empirical world with certainty, as it is beyond ability of your senses to totally behold.

None of those follow logically, which is why you failed at this whole discussion a few posts ago.

1 and 2 appeal to sense perception, memory, etc...not logic, regardless if they are empirically testable or not.

2 is also totally arbitrary, how you go from a particular (there are manifestions and a sense of existing) to a universal statement about the totality of things is baseless.

3 does not follow from any of those premises as well.

3 is also unfounded, since you are making a claim about the empirical world based on premises you claim are empirically untestable, lol...what sort of stuff are you smoking man? It must be crazy!!!1

Conclusion:
The truth value of those statements can not be verified by any system of logic. So logic fails.
The reasoning behind those 3 statements in that order is fallacious and illogical. So you fail at logic.

Nick Treklis wrote:

average wrote:So why use logic?

Because I'm logical.

Ahh, circular logic, the only kind.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:...

I'm afraid it is.

1) You start off with the (empirically untestable) basic premise of there being manifestations, a sense of existing.
2) You have the (empirically untestable) notion that the totality of things eludes your senses capacity to account.
3) You thus deduce that you can't know the truth of the empirical world with certainty, as it is beyond ability of your senses to totally behold.

None of those follow logically, which is why you failed at this whole discussion a few posts ago.

1 and 2 appeal to sense perception, memory, etc...not logic, regardless if they are empirically testable or not.

Ok average, consider the very example you used in the opening post:

All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man,
Socrates is mortal.

Doesn't 1 appeal to sense perception, memory, etc?

2 is also totally arbitrary, how you go from a particular (there are manifestions and a sense of existing) to a universal statement about the totality of things is baseless.

Doesn't it logically follow if there are manifestations, then there must be a totality of them?

3 does not follow from any of those premises as well.

3 is also unfounded, since you are making a claim about the empirical world based on premises you claim are empirically untestable

So why is it ok to deduce that Socrates is mortal?

The truth value of those statements can not be verified by any system of logic. So logic fails.

Ok, so what statements can be 'verified' by a system of logic?

The reasoning behind those 3 statements in that order is fallacious and illogical. So you fail at logic.

And so is this conclusion of yours, that I fail at logic, based on a logical deduction?

average wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:

average wrote:So why use logic?

Because I'm logical.

Ahh, circular logic, the only kind.

How so?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Ok average, consider the very example you used in the opening post:

All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man,
Socrates is mortal.

Doesn't 1 appeal to sense perception, memory, etc?

Its truth value depends on sense perception and memory.
So does 2.

The only part logic plays is the jump from 1&2 to 3.

Doesn't it logically follow if there are manifestations, then there must be a totality of them?

The word you want is Set, not totality.
And set theory is pretty messed up, so lets leave that alone.

The problem was -> the jump of an opinion about a particular to one of a universal, in this case it was a baseless assumption.

So why is it ok to deduce that Socrates is mortal?

It is only ok to deduce that Socrates is mortal if we assume the first 2 premises are true. The conclusion is logically necessary.
But logic can't tell us if the first two premises are true. It is only an if-then-function, if 1+2 = true then 3= true

Ok, so what statements can be 'verified' by a system of logic?

Depends which system of logic you are using. Honestly, in most cases, you can only verify trivial things....
And I have yet to find a symbolic system of logic that isn't distorted by semantics and translation.
I'm sure a purely syntactical system exists, but it would have no meaning, lol...Hmmmm

And so is this conclusion of yours, that I fail at logic, based on a logical deduction?

...
I'm not really sure you understand what logic is.

Have to laugh at "average" and Carl for using logic to make their points .....

-

David Quinn wrote:Have to laugh at "average" and Carl for using logic to make their points .....

-

it has its limited and dull uses, which is a pretty funny matter :D

As far as uncovering ultimately truth is concerned, logic is only limited to the degree that a person's outlook is limited.

-