Originally posted by ChronicLeakyThe good Dr. S. defined an axiom as a standard of truth within a given domain of discourse.
Well, X and ~X are statements in a language.
Now, I’m just a schlock at this stuff. I’m a layperson who tries to reason well, and looks to the rules of logic in order to do so.
It seems to me that the rules of logic (such as ~(X & ~X)) provide standards of coherency. For another example, if one says “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q”—one is simply being incoherent.
I would suggest that, whatever the conventions of language for expressing such coherency, if we did not think coherently—or if our considerations of the phenomenal world did not generally follow such standards of coherency—then we would likely not have survived as a species. This, it seems to me, goes deeper than language (at least public language, if a private language, contra Wittgenstein, is possible).
Glad you’re here, by the way, CL. 🙂
Originally posted by vistesdlogic is not faith.
The good Dr. S. defined an axiom as a standard of truth within a given domain of discourse.
Now, I’m just a schlock at this stuff. I’m a layperson who tries to reason well, and looks to the rules of logic in order to do so.
It seems to me that the rules of logic (such as ~(X & ~X)) provide standards of coherency. For another example, if one s ...[text shortened]... a private language, contra Wittgenstein, is possible).
Glad you’re here, by the way, CL. 🙂
but one should not put one's faith in logic.
I'm really not past Wittgenstein -- retirement project for self:
read Wittgenstein all over again and then Potter and figure it all out from there.
yeah, I'm sure I'll get to that, right after organizing the family photos....
Originally posted by ScriabinFaith without logic is the cornerstone of the religion, and the religion is the ultimate delusion😵
logic is not faith.
but one should not put one's faith in logic.
I'm really not past Wittgenstein -- retirement project for self:
read Wittgenstein all over again and then Potter and figure it all out from there.
yeah, I'm sure I'll get to that, right after organizing the family photos....
Originally posted by ScriabinI'm really not past Wittgenstein -- retirement project for self:
logic is not faith.
but one should not put one's faith in logic.
I'm really not past Wittgenstein -- retirement project for self:
read Wittgenstein all over again and then Potter and figure it all out from there.
yeah, I'm sure I'll get to that, right after organizing the family photos....
read Wittgenstein all over again and then Potter and figure it all out from there.
LOL! Wittgenstein is one of my retirement “projects”—fortunately I have many others as well!
I once had a wonderful debate on here over Wittgenstein and Zen: my “adversary” claimed that I was improperly relying on statements of the early Wittgenstein in light of the later Wittgenstein. I was arguing (and citing some things that I had read) that those particular statements were not invalidated by the later Wittgenstein. Turned out my “adversary” had done is Master’s thesis on Wittgenstein—at Cambridge! He didn’t disdain a challenge from a schlock like me, however…
Most of what I do on here is in the spirit of inquiry: argument helps me sort out my own thinking on various tracks.
Originally posted by black beetleI disagree, faith is how you define the variables in your logic! You can
Faith without logic is the cornerstone of the religion, and the religion is the ultimate delusion😵
setup your views upon anything by how you view the universe, as you
start to accept various and sundry views on what is true, will setup how
you view the universe around you. With that you put it all together and
come up with how you lay out how the universe should be colored or
looked at.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by marieclaireHow do you know that X and ~X can't be simultaneously true? Because it is illogical... the laws of logic were created by man to explain how things appeared to work in our universe.
How do you know that X and ~X can't be simultaneously true? Because it is illogical. And the laws of logic were created by man to explain how things appeared to work in our universe.
I think it's like science - how do you know that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground? Because of the man-made law of gravity. But if one day an apple didn't fall then man would have to amend the law to fit our new observations.
First of all, the laws of logic (as opposed to the laws of physics) are not discovered by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time (X and ~X), because we can only observe an object that exists, not an object that does not exist. The laws of logic are discovered by thought rather than by observation, and therefore it is wrong to say that the laws of logic explain how things appear to work in our universe.
Secondly, it is also wrong to say that the laws of logic were created by man. If logical absolutes (i.e., the laws of logic) were created by man, then they cannot be absolute; and if the laws of logic are not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
The human mind, on the other hand, is not absolute; people perpetually disagree and differ. What is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, logical absolutes are not the product of human minds. In fact, logical absolutes are not dependent upon people in any way since they are true whether people exist or not. Logical absolutes are conceptual realities that we discover rather than create.
Originally posted by epiphinehasGood thoughts.
[b]How do you know that X and ~X can't be simultaneously true? Because it is illogical... the laws of logic were created by man to explain how things appeared to work in our universe.
First of all, the laws of logic (as opposed to the laws of physics) are not discovered by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. For examp ...[text shortened]... or not. Logical absolutes are conceptual realities that we discover rather than create.[/b]
The hunter whose calculations of the behavior of the game—even implicitly and intuitively—did not accord with modus ponens, likely did not eat well. The same is true of non-human animals. Ultimately, any animal whose sentience does not accord with natural patterns of coherence would have a lower survival probability.
Thus, I am not convinced that the conscious discovery of such principles can be entirely divorced from observation; although, by the time we’re having a discussion like this one, we’re a number of steps removed. We observe not only phenomena, but patterns and consistencies, from which we are able to discover the principles of logic.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhen I say "appear" I don't necessarily mean our direct observations. I mean it more generally, the way things "seem to be" which would include how our thoughts perceive things to be. And our thoughts would be based on our observations, so I think it's ok to say that the laws of logic explain how things seem to be in our universe.
[b]How do you know that X and ~X can't be simultaneously true? Because it is illogical... the laws of logic were created by man to explain how things appeared to work in our universe.
First of all, the laws of logic (as opposed to the laws of physics) are not discovered by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. For examp ...[text shortened]... or not. Logical absolutes are conceptual realities that we discover rather than create.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree with all this, except for the first assumption that the laws of logic are absolute. Instead I think the laws of logic explain how things seem to be, not necessarily how they absolutely are.
Secondly, it is also wrong to say that the laws of logic were created by man. If logical absolutes (i.e., the laws of logic) were created by man, then they cannot be absolute; and if the laws of logic are not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
The human mind, on the other hand, is not absolute; people perpetually disagr ...[text shortened]... le exist or not. Logical absolutes are conceptual realities that we discover rather than create.
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe Kelly Jay you mean that "faith is how you define the variables in your Mind"? One's conclusions is an issue that has to do with one's evaluation, which it may be partly or as a whole false or correct, rational, irrational etc.
I disagree, faith is how you define the variables in your logic! You can
setup your views upon anything by how you view the universe, as you
start to accept various and sundry views on what is true, will setup how
you view the universe around you. With that you put it all together and
come up with how you lay out how the universe should be colored or
looked at.
Kelly
Methinks that, being irrational is not the same as being rational😵
Originally posted by epiphinehasRight!
[b]How do you know that X and ~X can't be simultaneously true? Because it is illogical... the laws of logic were created by man to explain how things appeared to work in our universe.
First of all, the laws of logic (as opposed to the laws of physics) are not discovered by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. For examp ...[text shortened]... or not. Logical absolutes are conceptual realities that we discover rather than create.[/b]
Originally posted by marieclaire...so I think it's ok to say that the laws of logic explain how things seem to be in our universe.
When I say "appear" I don't necessarily mean our direct observations. I mean it more generally, the way things "seem to be" which would include how our thoughts perceive things to be. And our thoughts would be based on our observations, so I think it's ok to say that the laws of logic explain how things seem to be in our universe.
But, by stating this, you are in fact claiming that you've witnessed something not existing.
Originally posted by BadwaterWhat!!!?
Logic is nothing more than an examination of cause and effect. It is not the system, any system, in and of itself; it is the means of the systemic examination of cause and effect within a given system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
-no mention of ‘cause and effect’ there!
Perhaps you are confusing one of the main applications of logic (applied to cause and effect) with logic itself?
I can give plenty of examples of logical deductions that do not involve ‘cause and effect’
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPer your link, the first sentence:
What!!!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
-no mention of ‘cause and effect’ there!
"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
Sorry that Wiki went polysyllabic on you, but I believe they mean cause and effect. 😉
Within the context of the subject of this thread, what I said was accurate.