Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[Perspectives]

Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.

We are as a matter of our existence, subjective. Formal logic is our answer to subjectivity. Formal logic rises above feelings and beliefs that are based on something other than demonstrable and verifiable processes. Formal logic and its resultant proofs are our attempt at creating a solidly objective definition of our existence. Our reality is defined by this formal process. And through them we attempt to interpret what we’ve proven. We have framed our reality by the tools that we’ve chosen to create and the reasoning we’ve chosen to employ to interpret our results. This we choose to call objective methodology or scientific methodology, if we use formal logic.

We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools to work on his or her automobile. Granted most people pop out and buy the tools but if you’ve ever worked on a machine that needs fixing without the proper tool, you may create one through necessity, even today. Normally we create a mechanism and then design the tools to service the mechanism. Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?


We have limited ourselves through selecting previously experienced supportative experiences. We have chosen to use things that will predictable produce an expected result. Granted there are experimental and applied workers that can weave tales till the wee hours of the morning about unexpected results. Either we’re looking at a poorly defined theory without supportative formal processes or a misdirected experiment.
Einstein devised many of his theories with codicils of suggested experimental verification. Why he expected them to work. He knew that a well framed question has at it’s roots, the answer.

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective. We define it, We choose it and we use it to define itself. Philosophy is at the leading edge of thought and some times even before it. It helps ignite the illumination that will expose potential answers to our questions. But it must sometimes go beyond our present system of reasoning by realizing we are enduring a subjective system of thought that is becoming limited in its perspective of reality. “We make reality in our own image.”

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Perspectives
Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.


We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective.

A very good post and I agree with all that you say except that it is a closed system. I think that in the above paragraph you contradict youself when you say on one hand that we create new tools as needed yet operate in a closed system. That we can create new tools to explore new ideas and experiments to me is an open system.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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.

Now, if you would care to look at the dictionary definitions of subjective and objective, you have just completely denied your mind hypothesis.

For a quicky, subjective means existing only in the mind. Objective means existing outside the mind. So perception is outside the mind now, eh? Just what are you saying?

 

[Perspectives]

Royce,

Thank you for considering my thoughts. I have not clarified myself although I do tend to ramble and that is no assurance of clarity.

I submit that as a matter of consequence, we have fashioned a closed system. Even when we create a new tool it is no more than a modification of existing tools or at the very best a tool that is created from the root Logic from which all tools are created. In addition due to it’s imposed limitations we are predisposed to use what is at hand within our reality. The object of our attention through its limits are selected by us through default. This to my mind is subjective since it is all we have but more over it was created by us, through our subjective limitations. We can only know what we choose to know. Despite our attempts to distance ourselves from feelings and irrational beliefs, we have learned to at least separate ourselves from them by putting order to our thoughts even though the outcome will always be predictable. We model our reality based on our predisposed condition.

I have contemplated that we are as all animals, doomed to extinction through our own limitations. It is quite possible that our intellect will perform the job because we cannot “think outside the box.” What box? As the Bard put it, this “Mortal coil.” If this is so them might not this box have imposed limits on our ability to become more? I can only assume the body is of third importance and the mind being second and our essence first.

From our subjective self we must employ new means of consideration if we are to do more that think outside, we need to be outside the box.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.

Nice to know

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.

Good idea (although it seems that a thread entitled "logic=truth?" is a fairly good place to discuss this, should you choose to do so).

But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly.

Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?

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.

You can't isolate it from "reason", but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here , I think I'll take that stance (for now).

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).

Yes, they are established by logic. And so are many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality. Just take a look at the thread "I think therefore I am" (I'm having a hecuva time trying to argue this point against Manuel).

 

[Perspectives]

Royce,

I should indicate the basis of why I believe our system of reasoning is subjective.

Logic =Truth cannot be correct. Logic is a formalized process of reasoning and Truth is a judgment pronounced regarding what we see, Not what we’ve calculated. Formal Logic as applied to a problem such as the supportative mathematics Einstein used in the Special Theory of Relativity is irrevocable and irrefutable. Within the framework of the logic all is correct. It is but an explanation of his General Theory of Relativity; His interpretation through mathematical modeling of the universe.

The verbalizing, the interpretation as presented to his peers is an explanation, a truth-small t. There are places where it does not mesh with Quantum Physics. No GUT. Big G.
Is TOR and GT a very opportunistic explanations of reality for lack of a new view? Will SST support it? It certainly has provided a possible bridge between Einstein and Bohr.

The breakdown of any system occurs when it must be applied to the “Outer Limits” of our view of reality. We have limited ourselves by our creation of subjective tools and our application of them. While objectivity may be pronounced when we use Formal Logic and experimentation, the framework that their very existence creates limits us.

Our tools propose, through logic possibility. Experimentation verifies we are correct and those two attributes beg objectivity, then our interpretation must announce a truth. However the framework within which we operate, that which is outlined above surely limits our treatment of existence when we choose to explore it. We are in my view subjectively examining existence and pronouncing it reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?

It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

Originally posted by Mentat
You can't isolate it from "reason" . . .

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here , I think I'll take that stance (for now).

That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality.

Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

 

[Royce]

Persepectives,
While Logic and Math (I still can't separate them) are in and of the mind they are not subjective but abstract. They do not in anyway, in their pure form, attempt to represent reality but instead are pure thought, abstracts. As Logic and Math are defined solely in the mind and the rules are defined solely in the mind of Man they cannot be wrong. Unless you want to go very deeply into the metaphysical they are abstract concepts invented in the mind for the mind by the mind and as definitions they cannot be wrong. There is no intent to related them to Truth only that they are true. As tools they can be and often are applied to Truth and Reality sometimes successfully sometimes not. I've said this before in other places. I think it appropriate to repeat this as often as necessary, wherever and whenever necessary, because they are basic truths and we all too often try to make more of logic than it really is or try to dispute the validity of logic. 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'm just explaining the rules and facts and why so many common beliefs of Logic and it's uses are wrong and do not apply.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).


That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.



Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).

That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience).

Isn't this contradictory? You are saying that the criterium for a "good" philosophy is that it be testable. But then you say that it need not be physically testable (last sentence quoted above).

Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

That's the point. Even your concept of "reality" could be entirely wrong, and thus there is no certainty in empirical testing.

 

[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