Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[Perspectives]

Royce,

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

Perspectives

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

 

[Perspectives]

Logic =Truth in a box

Royce,

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

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

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

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

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

Perspectives