Reason justifying it's own reasonings.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Willowz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reason
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of reasoning, particularly the tendency to justify premises and the implications of circular reasoning. Participants explore how to avoid unnecessary rationalization and whether scientific thinking can address these epistemic concerns.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that reasoning often justifies pre-existing assumptions, raising concerns about circularity in arguments, especially in theology.
  • Another participant notes that labeling reasoning as "unnecessary" implies a preference for a more pragmatic approach.
  • A different participant questions the justification of logic itself, arguing that attempts to justify it through logic lead to circular reasoning and suggesting that logic may be taken for granted or accepted on faith.
  • This participant also mentions that premises often arise from inductive and deductive reasoning.
  • One post indicates that the thread may not align with established philosophy guidelines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the justification of reasoning and logic, with no consensus on how to avoid unnecessary rationalization or the role of science in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of logic and reasoning that remain unresolved, particularly regarding the circularity of justifications.

Willowz
Messages
197
Reaction score
1
I think this process happens very often. Somebody starts with some assumptions or premises and his or her reason is justifying these premises. I mean words are circular after all and if you open any book on theology and/or God you might get my point.

Here's the question. How do we avoid unnecessary rationalisation? It's so useless and such a waste of time.

Is science the answer to this epistemic problem? Can you actually think "scientifically"?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"Unnecessary" implies it is useless or at least extraneous and a pragmatic approach is preferred.
 
What do you mean? I don't know much philosophy/logic. Are you asking how do we justify logic? I don't think we can. If we try to justify logic by using logic, that'd just be circular. If we try to invent some higher form of logic, we still have the same issue or trying to justify that. Invent an even higher form of logic or use that higher form to justify itself? I think we just take it for granted or just have blind faith in it, logic I mean.

I think most premises come from induction stuff and some from deduction.
 
This thread does not meet philosophy guidelines.
 

Similar threads

Is Reality Just a Construct of Our Beliefs?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
Undergrad Is the equation 0!=1 based on flawed reasoning?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
Do Scientific Models Need to Reflect Underlying Realities to Be Valid?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Why do so many people hate science?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
Question about observation and the sense theory
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Classical Waves books -- Looking for better textbooks to augment my class materials
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Establishing a basic vocabulary of the philosophy of science
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Fact checking - Scientific method
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
How Can You Think Like a Scientist?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K