Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
IMO, I noticed you didn't bring it up here either. So put up or shut up! Or, better yet, why don't we all just put up or shut up! ... IMO, of course.

Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion.[/color] It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.

Sure it does. And if you want to debate about it, then you obviously have an opinion about it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sure it does.

No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Correct logic"? Logic is just the system of using reasoning systems, and who can judge which of these reasoning systems is "correct"?

You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking. If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.

It seems you are projecting the average human's poor reasoning skills onto the process itself. For what reason is intended -- understanding the order of things -- it works perfectly when perfectly practiced.

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the strict rules = logic. That which must abide by the "strict rules" = reasoning systems.

Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the entire system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Reality is like a two-edge sword. Be careful how you wield it, lest ye slice your own self ...

As far as this thing about my avatar is concerned, that's strictly general information (at least for now). While I can assure you, I have no intention of putting myself in the line of fire the way Lifegazer has, not at this time nor, anytime in the near future. You only need to crucify somebody once in order to demonstrate its effectiveness ... although it seems Lifegazer has developed a liking for it!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).

I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".

Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking.

Or, it could be human folly that leads you to this conclusion (just teasing your mind).

I just don't think that all logic follows the structure of nature, because there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.

If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every all scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.

Yes, these are based on Logic. So are all religions, because they are reasoning systems, and no reasoning system exists outside of Logic.

Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

But Logic does not equal "rules".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by PorchMonkey
I have much more than my opinion. I have porn.

Now how did I know this was going to happen? ... Different strokes for different folks!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.

I understand it's very important to get in the last word here, therefore this is last word I'm going to say about it (to you).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by SanitationCommitee
I believe logic=lies. All lies. The world is full of them. Take Jamie Lee Curtis. Were you aware she was a hermaphrodite as a child? How about our own former President, Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lie. Fulllll of crap.

LOL! Well, I see you are going to fit right in.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence.[/color] But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.

Then why do people write books about it? (the experience). And why do other people read them? If you're going to speak about anything, whether it be your own experience or whatever, then it "has" to entail logic.

And besides, you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that.

It appears that you overlooked the gist of my posts. For arguments "inside the box", evidence has to be 'sensed'. Whereas for arguments "outside of the box", evidence has to be reasoned - purely.

Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence.

Incorrect. You cannot prove it by observation. The artist is not to be found within his paint, but by how he paints.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".

ARRRRgggggggggggg! Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.

All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.

Originally posted by Mentat . . . there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.

Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.

What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?

Similarly, you are projecting the imperfections on a process, reason, that has very clearly defined rules, and which few people follow correctly. Then, you say it is reason which is ambiguous! No, it is people who can't reason well that confuses things.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
. . . you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.

 

[Iacchus32]

PorchMonkey

Hey what happened to PorchMonkey? He was just here a while ago, but now he's gone? Instead there's Sanitation Monkey (SanitationCommittee) which popped up in its place. It's funny because I just saw PorchMonkey posted up on the board (new user) and I thought, oh no it looks like he found me, and sure enough two minutes later there was the post. But now it's gone?

While it looks like Sanitation Monkey needs to clean up his act too! ... Oops! Gone again, right before this very post! ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.

It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.

I hear what you're saying, really I do, but I'm not abouts to change (give up my beliefs) just because it doesn't jive with other people's "standards." If there's one thing I have learned in this life, it's you have to be yourself. It won't work any other way. I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed on philosophy, yet it's obvious I have an inclination towards both, and this is what I've been given to work with. If people don't like what I say, or how I say it, then maybe that's good, because maybe they might learn something!

Hey man, I can get pretty ornery at times, and I have to admit, I kind of like it ... whereas I might acquiese, if I felt I actually knew something. Yeah right!

 

[Iacchus32]

LW Sleeth:

Don't be surprised if I don't show up posting one day, as I've been debating for some time on how on usefull it is to continue doing this. So don't take it personally if I'm gone one day and may never come back. This may even happen as early as tomorrow ... but then again I only intended to make a few posts today which, is how it started out, but I believe I've made more posts today then at any other time! So who knows? ...

 

[Perspectives]

Logic and Truth are optional

Logic and Truth, 5/3/2003 7:48 PM EST

I agree with the proponents of the belief that logic is a system of reasoning that concludes with an answer that is inherent in the systems design. In addition I agree with those that believe that truth is the antecedent of the premise. Truth is an essence of the systems under investigation. “Logic is to Truth as Mathematics is to myopia.”

Truth is a perspective granted through systems logic. Truth must present a basic connectivity to its logical system to fulfill its possibility. Logic allows conclusion while speculation grants Truth.

Our truths are limited by our ability to understand what we see. We interpret what we see through the use of our systems of understanding. Understanding allows verification, which begets Truth therefore, our reality. Of course there are “two plus two” truths and “God is real” truths. I am addressing the former not the latter.

We receive reinforcement of our reality when objective demonstration is presented. Most closed systems of belief that contain common elements are mutually supporting. Reality is validated every time we turn on a light bulb and it glows. Our explanation of the mechanics of conductors, electron flow, resistance, energy conversion works perfectly since it is demonstrated by incandescent bulbs, florescent bulbs, and electric motors, etc.

To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic. Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

If we can think outside the box, we can move to the next reality. To discover outside our present limits, we must explain elements that we understand under our present system of logic using a new system. The new system of verification must fall outside our present system. We may have reached our limits with our present supportive infrastructure, logic and mathematics, new values, relationships, supportive infrastructure to reach a new reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Welcome.

Originally posted by Perspectives
To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic.

'Knowledge' (physical laws) is objective. This can be confirmed by:
1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).
2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..
Now if you apply 'reason' to your sensations, you come-up with scientific-knowledge. Knowledge which can predict the future-outcome of existential (sensationed) events. Therefore, this knowledge is correct.

Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system? Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense. Concepts are born from our sensations - but not by them. There is no 'infinity' in our sensation. There is no 'nothing'. There is no 'equals'. Such things are reasoned beyond sensation. Logic - with its beyond-sensation concepts - allows you (science) to predict the future of universal events. Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.

 

[FZ+]

1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).

As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.

Or we're just lucky. Or trying to predict the wrong things.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..

Doesn't make them objective.

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system?

Yes it is. By both the "axiom" and "definition" principles.

Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense.

But there is no garantee these logical arguments are true, is there?

Such things are reasoned beyond sensation.

No. They are reasoned FROM sensation.

Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.

They are still reasoned from sensation. And there is no reason (excuse the pun) that such concepts are true, without sensational backing. And even then they may not be true.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
ARRRRgggggggggggg!

All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here .

Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.

Good enough example, but it doesn't have much to do with my point. What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable.

All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.

Sure I do. However, misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic".

Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.

One example...lifegazer's Mind proposition.

What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?

Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system[/color].

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here .

Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.

Originally posted by Mentat
What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable. . . . misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic". . . . Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system[/color].

Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.

But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly. If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer. But that does not in any way impune logic, it simply reveals that people can pull logic out of the reasoning process and use it like a hammer on every subject there is.

And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).

 

[Royce]

LW Sleeth,
My hat's off to you. You are in my mind a true logistician. I have been reading this thread and dispite the obvious references to other threads I have yet to read, I think you made your point and stuck to it. Everytime I wanted to make a remark to support a point you'd made you beat me to it said it better than I could. I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.
The only thing I would like to emphasize is the Logic is a tool with which we reason. There are others such as math. Logic like math if done properly will always come up with the correct answer but like any system, GIGO, Garbage In - Garbage Out. And as you so well pointed out like any tool it must be properly applied to the proper job at hand. I find it hard to separate math and logic. One is useless without the other and the same rules apply to both hense Boolean algebra helped so much in the development and design of computers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
LW Sleeth,
You are in my mind a true logistician.. . . I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.

Thank you Royce . . .live long and prosper (sorry Drag, it was logical that I borrow that).