A logical argument against the absolute nature of logic

Post Reply New Topic

"logic is tweeting bird in tree. Logic is a bunch of flowers that smell bad" - Spock.

I think the problem with logic is establishing the premise in the first place. You can logically argue something totally abhorrent (but that would be a modest proposal, for example), yet stay true to a logical argument. Logic is a tool, but sometimes 'tools' use logic...present company excepted...

Exactly. Its similar to math in that sense; - 1, 583 2/3, ln e, d(x) of what? Calculus is great for engineering if you have good ingredients and ideas being thrown into the rubric but making advanced calculations in reference to lets say cow dung in a pasture - you start with dung, you shift some numbers around, calculate area or mass, and have dung in the end for which - unless your in the fertilizer business - the equations did little more than just entertain OCD or boredom for a few hours.

Anything can be rationalized logically. Wars are logical to the person who benefits from it.

As a primate, I think we can imagine some excellent uses for parabolas and dung.

A MATHEMATICIAN might argue that math is constructed. But a PHYSICIST would argue that mathematics is inherent in the universe around us. Even if intelligent life were not around to argue, the circumference of a circle would still equal 3.14.... times its diameter. Gravity would still be 9.81 meters per second per second. Its like the tree falling in a forest without anybody around to hear it. The vibrations in the air that we perceive as sound are still there, even though nobody is perceiving them.

The use of logic to reach conclusions from faulty premises may land you in Oz but the use of illogic from almost any premises will pretty much guarantee you to be there.

Hmm, it seems to me that any debate about logic tends to focus on the semantic formalization of its use. To argue against its absolute nature, would be to argue against mathematics itself.

If I were to state: "If A is a subset of B, and if B is a subset of C, then A is a subset of C", or to further simplify: If 1<2 & 2<3, then 1<3, what possible argument can you raise? You might argue that the logician has formalized the problem incorrectly, that perhaps 2 is 3, and 3 is 2, and < actually means >. But in the end, you are arguing about semantics, and not about the nature of logic.

Umm.... I don't think that most people who argue against logic really are going to argue for mathematics much. Especially given that the foundations of mathematics are likely more questionable than the foundations of logical analysis. As it stands, we cannot know all of the right math in the universe.

As for your argument, on ranked numbers, it is fallacious. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, does not mean that rock beats paper. Instead, rock beats scissors. All that one has to do is claim that some issue gets in the way of the transitivity.

All of that being said, danlo, you cannot put forward an argument that logic is correct or that logical truths are absolute/non-relative. The entire affair would beg the question.

You make a generalization too large, people will find counterexamples.

Mostly correct. However note that a broken 12 hour clock tells the right time twice a day.

ruveyn

But you have to have a working clock to know when to look.

The thing failed me after I read 2). Logicians didn't create logic.

Ah, but where does it come from? Observation? Why is it valid? How could we distinguish the idea that logic is a result of the reasoning of logicians from the hypothesis that logic exists naturally in some form or fashion?

Why are logicians somehow considered unnatural?

The distinction is between a result of the human mind and a "natural law" or whatever you would call it.

The science fiction series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a result of the human mind. Star Trek could not exist if it weren't a human invention, so it is not like a "natural law". A "natural law" would exist regardless of having a person describe it in a treatise or otherwise develop a field for the continuation of the knowledge of it.