Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A logical argument against the absolute nature of logic

Page 1 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

22 May 2009, 3:55 pm

A thread I found here.

Quote:
1) Nothing non-absolute can causally or ontologically be the basis for an absolute

2) Logicians created logic

3) Logicians are not absolute

4) Therefore, logic is not absolute

So for once I partially agree with our good friends the presuppositionalists. Of course, rather than conclude that logic "comes from God" (whatever the hell than means) I do, in fact, conclude that logic is ultimately not absolute.

I understand that teaching logic as if it was absolute is a useful teaching tool as we grow up. However ultimately, I think this is a simplification, an approximation, a helpful intellectual crutch in one's philosophical development. At best. At worst, it leads into Platonism and other horrific notions.

Cheers,
-blowfly

P.S. Anyone mindless enough to say "haha, *giggle*, but... but you undermine your own *snicker* argument so it's wrong *pffffffft....ahh....ahhhh...CHOOO!!*" needs merely to collapse the equation "non-absolute = wrong" and improve the distinctions their brain is capable of engaging.


What do you think about the nature of logic, and the nature of 'absolute' for that matter? I am not very familiar with Philosophy, so any comments would be greatly appreciated.

A few definitions worth knowing:

Causality

Ontological

Platonism


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


McTell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,453
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

22 May 2009, 3:59 pm

I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

22 May 2009, 4:02 pm

McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

Interesting. Could we say that we did not invent refrigerators, either?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

22 May 2009, 4:02 pm

McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

A lot of people do say that mathematicians create mathematics.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2009, 4:28 pm

twoshots wrote:
McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

A lot of people do say that mathematicians create mathematics.


If their were no humans or equivalent sentient intelligent life forms, there would be no mathematics.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 May 2009, 4:47 pm

Well, there are a few ways to account for logic.

Atheist philosopher Stephen Law brings up 3 on his blog, each of which I will post here for people to read:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/ ... gical.html (we can determine truth-preserving forms of expression)

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/ ... logic.html (logic emerges from definition)

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/ ... phers.html (logic is just a very deeply held belief, this might be similar to your post's comment)

There is also the theist and perhaps the Platonist conceptions, with the latter technically not requiring a deity.



McTell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,453
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

22 May 2009, 4:52 pm

twoshots wrote:
McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

A lot of people do say that mathematicians create mathematics.


You're right of course. :oops:

I was trying to say that it is more common to believe that mathematicians don't create mathematics ex nihilo, but I got carried away with vagueness and rhetoric flair. I hope I can be forgiven.

~

I'll try to do better this time.

As I understand it, logicians create logic in the same sense that mathematicians create mathematics or scientists create science. That is, the things themselves already exist (in that 1 + 1 already equalled 2 before the mathematician carried out the sum and gravity pulled objects to Earth before the theory of gravity was proposed).

I was understanding the person Henriksson quoted to be talking about logicians creating logic in the same sense as Christians understand God to have created the universe (that is, that it was saying there was no logic before, then logicians created some). This could be me misunderstanding it though.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

22 May 2009, 6:16 pm

twoshots wrote:
McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

A lot of people do say that mathematicians create mathematics.

There are mathematicians on both sides of the issue.

I personally think making a logical argument against logic is a waste of time. If you're going to argue against logic, just say logic is wrong. Anyone who tries to disprove your point will have to use logic to do so -- and you don't accept logic.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

22 May 2009, 6:18 pm

That was funny, Ancalgon.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 May 2009, 6:21 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
There are mathematicians on both sides of the issue.

I personally think making a logical argument against logic is a waste of time. If you're going to argue against logic, just say logic is wrong. Anyone who tries to disprove your point will have to use logic to do so -- and you don't accept logic.

I think your statement could be made into a logical argument against logic. An irrefutable one at that.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

22 May 2009, 7:02 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
There are mathematicians on both sides of the issue.

I personally think making a logical argument against logic is a waste of time. If you're going to argue against logic, just say logic is wrong. Anyone who tries to disprove your point will have to use logic to do so -- and you don't accept logic.

I think your statement could be made into a logical argument against logic. An irrefutable one at that.

Logically speaking, there is no such argument, since it presupposes the rejection of logic.

Illogically speaking, on the other hand, the of the of from. Pineapple it it it cherry, the if. Of see withing, not not.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 May 2009, 7:18 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Logically speaking, there is no such argument, since it presupposes the rejection of logic.

Well, the thing is that this sentence: "Anyone who tries to disprove your point will have to use logic to do so -- and you don't accept logic." has a logical meaning explaining why that position works.

The reason being that logic, in order to be accepted as true must be justified, and logic cannot be justified without the use of logic, thus making the situation circular.

You're just applying the regress argument, at least if you knew how to actually weaponize this kind of a stand, rather than make it seem like you are arbitrary and capricious.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

22 May 2009, 7:21 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
twoshots wrote:
McTell wrote:
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be that logicians created logic. It isn't like we say that mathematicians created mathematics or that scientists created science.

A lot of people do say that mathematicians create mathematics.

There are mathematicians on both sides of the issue.

While doubtless there are, most of the mathematicians I have spoken with who have given any idea of their opinion on the matter have seemed to be essentially in favor of the idea that math is constructed; I do not know the extent to which each perspective is held among mathematicians (although I myself, quite shamelessly, sympathize with mathematical platonism).

Now then, as for the original argument, whatever does absolute mean?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

22 May 2009, 10:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the thing is that this sentence: "Anyone who tries to disprove your point will have to use logic to do so -- and you don't accept logic." has a logical meaning explaining why that position works.

That sentence, by itself, is logical and coherent, but holding that position is rejecting logic. You can defend that position logically, but you can't hold it logically.

But even defending the position without holding it, you can only say that the position is logically irrefutable, not that it is true. Holding that position is rejecting the concept of truth. If that position is true, then truth doesn't exist.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 May 2009, 10:45 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
That sentence, by itself, is logical and coherent, but holding that position is rejecting logic. You can defend that position logically, but you can't hold it logically.

But even defending the position without holding it, you can only say that the position is logically irrefutable, not that it is true. Holding that position is rejecting the concept of truth. If that position is true, then truth doesn't exist.

Well, yes, you could. If logic rejects itself, then you are thrust into that position logically. Is this perhaps a bit of a paradox? I mean, the irrationalist does not care about the rationality that lead to the position, yes, but at the same time, trying to leave the position could be argued to be rationally impossibility. (Irrationally possible though, as you have suggested yourself that logic is a leap of faith)

Prove that truth is logical without referencing logic. Let's see how it stands to my counter-argument. :P



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,489
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

22 May 2009, 10:50 pm

I notice you guys do reach deep on logical processes, its not a bad thing but sometimes it seems like it rips free of Kansas and spirals off to Oz. The only thing I worry about though, with all the formulas, just be sure you don't lose grounding in common sense or too wrapped up in words or floating points - I'd imagine your keeping your gut-level common sense well guarded but, losing the forest for the trees causes you to lose something that it took a lifetime to accrue.

That said though logic is a very useful tool, I have to agree though with the quote from the original post though that its grounding is largely governed by a person's a priori statements and, while someone can indeed change their foundations it takes often more substantial proof than what's available. So, logic helps people further articulate and lean-up what they already believe, make a more and more stable structure of their beliefs (which is a definite human need for safety and protectorate rolls), though it quite often won't shatter the fundamentals that they started from because they're coded into the entire process of how they logically got to where they are now in terms of their beliefs.