Is logic ultimately constructed on faith?

[JoeDawg]

So, that said, this is the issue as I see it. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. I argue that acceptance of logic as a system depends on faith, because one cannot provide evidence for logic, without appealing to logic. To say that we have observed logic working in the past, is not to provide evidence for logic as a system, but merely to make a statement about an observed incident. To move from a specific observation, or a series of specific observations, to an argument of evidence for a general theory is inductive reasoning. Because of this, no matter how many specific incidents of logic working that we see, we cannot propose the events as evidence of the system, without using the system we are trying to support.

When you make an observation, you observe a pattern. Our system of reasoning did not pop out of thin air, it has an origin. Hume called it 'a habit', and I won't go any further than that. We observe a pattern, we have evolved to recognize patterns. Its how we survive, its why we survived. There are patterns in the universe. Seeing the pattern, seeing the consistency, we have developed 'inductive reasoning'. We see the pattern and create the system based on it. The pattern proves nothing about the system, it simply points the direction. Faith requires no such observation.

Just like we have a thing and we put some thing similar beside it, we have two similar things... 1+1=2.

This of course is derived from observation, not logic. The logic is the result. Its on the level of abstraction... a rule... derived from observation.

Faith would require no such observation, no initial pattern, no evidence.

Faith is about 'revealed truth'. It requires nothing.
This is not where inductive...or any reasoning... comes from.

Yes, inductive logic comes from inductive thinking, but this is derived from the observation of a pattern. It is not revealed from on high. It doesn't pop into existence because a god says so, and for no other reason. Faith makes no requirement of any pre-existing observation. We are told it is so, period, end of story.

Inductive reasoning is developed, faith, you either have or not.

 

[Violator]

I like your point here, however, I think it is an important distinction between the wsay logic is developed, and the way it is taught. I agree with you that the normal human experience of seeing patterns and such requires no faith. When I say logic requires faith I mean more so the system of logic as taught. I am referring more to the formalized rules that one must accept in order to take reasoning beyond the simple.

I think the mathematic example lends itself to this point very well. While anyone can see that placing two similar object near each other yields more similar objects than we had prior, and anyone can see if we call each object 1 object, it is a far jump from 1+1=2 to calculus. My point earlier in bringing up the created nature of mathematics is that, for math to make sense, one must simply accept the rules of math. To me, that is an act of faith. Faith in math perhaps, more likely faith in the person teaching you math.

 

[JoeDawg]

My point earlier in bringing up the created nature of mathematics is that, for math to make sense, one must simply accept the rules of math. To me, that is an act of faith. Faith in math perhaps, more likely faith in the person teaching you math.

Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness, which can be a very useful survival mechanism. It can allow us to ignore the facts and push ourselves beyond what we see as our limits, but it can just as easily get us killed when we should have known better.

Some may have faith in their teachers, in systems, gods, or in facts, and you are right, quite a lot do, and many will accept what is taught to them, by people in authority, simply because it is given to them by authority. I am told, so it must be thus.

However, one always chooses one's teacher, or at least, one chooses which teachers to pay attention to. If all I did was regurgitate what my professors/teachers told me, then yes, that requires nothing more than faith, belief without evidence. I am told, I believe. But I would not call that 'learning'. A computer can record facts.

Rather, I choose my teachers, I choose those who I will believe, based on evidence, based on what I can see they know, and what others have said about them, I choose to believe them, even if I don't understand this or that. The important part is that I rely on some kind of evidence for my belief. I may be wrong, the evidence might lead me astray. But I shouldn't accept it simply because we are told. Revealed truth is unquestioned truth, it requires faith, acceptance without qualification. Most people actually question authority these days, they lack faith.

Also, I suck at calculus, never understood it, tried to learn it, didn't work out. I can't say it works, but I've been told its useful. If I had learned it, and understood it, then I would be in the same position as I am with 1+1=2. I'm not with regards to calculus, but I know there are people who seem to be able to use it quite well, and more importantly, they are able to use it for things I can readily observe. I'm not absolutely certain about anything.

What the 'problem of induction' shows us is that we should be skeptical. We should look for evidence, but even when we have evidence, that's a far cry from 'certainty'.

Hume wasn't an irrational skeptic, he wasn't a solipsist, denying everything. He was an empiricist, an observer of things. We should remain skeptical, and keep an open mind. Faith is, in that sense, the closed mind, because it doesn't need evidence, it claims certainty, and even if contradictory evidence comes to light, faith has no use for it. With faith one becomes a hero, a tyrant or a fool, and one might argue, all three.

Some may have faith, may claim certainty, in logic and science, but its not required.

 

[Gear300]

I think I might see where you're coming from Joedawg; its sort of like saying: since the sun moves across the sky, it must then revolve around the Earth. It seems reasonable, but not necessarily true...is that sort of what you meant by the fallacy in induction?

 

[JoeDawg]

I think I might see where you're coming from Joedawg; its sort of like saying: since the sun moves across the sky, it must then revolve around the Earth. It seems reasonable, but not necessarily true...is that sort of what you meant by the fallacy in induction?

Well, induction is strictly a matter of using the past to predict the future. If you observe the sun move across the sky every day of your life, whether you know the mechanism or not, you could reasonably say that it will do the same tomorrow. You can't say for certain, regardless of how much information about the sun you have. We use the evidence of the past to predict the future.

The problem of induction is that tomorrow could be the one day its different. It could explode for instance, or just wink out and be gone.

 

[FlowerPUA]

I see it like this:

Michio Kaku has logic... i have faith in Michio Kaku

 

[Violator]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith. You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has. I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

 

[JoeDawg]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith.

I have no problem with that definition.

You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has.

Seeking evidence to support something you have faith in, simply means you seek to remove the faith part from what you believe. That doesn't really change the nature of faith however.

I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

Proof for induction simply doesn't exist as far as we know, or I have never seen it and I'm always happy to listen. The evidence for induction working is monstrous though, its why we accept it as valid, even without proof. Its part of our daily lives.

To equate that with faith, when the normal usage includes the supernatural is disingenuous is my opinion. There is no evidence for a creator, for instance, we simply don't know how or if the world started. What we do know is that most of the claims about a creator are clearly made up by those with an interest in doing so. Other claims, Muhammad ascending into heaven, Jesus walking on water, an eternal soul existing, etc... all are claims with little basis or no basis in fact.

Induction seems to work everyday, for everyone. We just can't prove it.

There are people who believe, based on evidence, that we didn't land on the moon. Even conspiracy nuts rely on evidence for their belief. Its not that you may not have, or want, evidence for your belief, its that you require none... if you have faith.