Logic and Reason

[Pariah]

It may be a bit presumptious to think anyone gives a damn, but here it is anyway: Pariah's whistle-stop tour of logic and reason!

Heres a good place to learn symbolic logic (you'll be glad that I'm not using it in this post):

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/symbolic.html

I'll mostly be using a book called "Doing Philosophy" by Theodore Schick Jr. and Lewis Vaughn to help me with this (almost exclusively). It won't be in the same detail - I'll be putting forward the bare bones so to speak, and putting links to some websites for reference.

This is all very basic stuff, but is required to understand what's really being said when a theory is being put forward.

The begining, after all, is a good place to start.

If you have questions: Ask them!
If you have criticisms: Fire away!
If I've made a mistake: let me know!

Also note: Its pretty long, clocking in at over 3000 words, if nothing else look at the fallacy section at the end.

 

[Nomada]

what do you mean by "accept what this article says"?

 

[Pariah]

By "accept the article" I'm asking to what degree you agree to the method used, how flawed do you think it is, does it miss anything out of what it aims to cover: the formalisation of logical argument structure. but also more generally - would you add anything? or is it "acceptable" for use in trying to head towards truth - if not whats wrong / missing in your opinion.

 

[Guest]

OMG

...I read the topic's title and thought someone wanted to talk about Logic Pro 8 and Reason 4 (two digital audio workstations).

 

[Pariah]

Sorry to dissapoint!

:wink:

 

[Meduzz]

It has axioms just like any other system. Truth can only be found within the system (a statement that doesn't contradict the axioms). The only system that contains all absolute truth is the universe itself.

 

[restin]

"Because our lives are determined by the philosophical beliefs we hold - if our philosophy is flawed we are in danger of pursuing false ideals, worshipping false gods, and nurturing false hopes."

Dangerous!!!! You presume that there are right ideas and real Gods. Therefore you state that every philosophy can be right/wrong. This is - philosophically - unwise to say. Can you say that Rousseau was right and Schopenhauer wrong? No, that would be a naive thing to do.

An example:
1. Every Raven that has ever been observed has been black.
2. Therefore, every Raven that ever will be observed will be black.
It is possible that the premise is true and the conclusion false – we haven’t observed every raven, so we cannot be sure that a non black Raven exists somewhere. What the argument does do is establish a conclusion with a high probability of being true.

Probability is fun. But if we calculated everything with probability, we would fail immediately................
[quote:2g9c1cip]In the second case: “Bigfoot must exist, because nobody can prove he doesn’t.

 

[Pariah]

"It has axioms just like any other system."

I completely agree Meduzz - its a system, and as such has the weaknesses associated with systems, but is it a good system for what it perports to do? - Does it give a structure which can differentiate between logical and illogical beliefs, help people reach a consensus on issues that are being discussed?


"You presume that there are right ideas and real Gods."

I disagree that the sentence you refer to is saying that - there may be false gods, and nothing but false gods for example.


"if we calculated everything with probability, we would fail immediately."

Thats why there is the distinction between deduction and inference, but also inference only really gives us a finite *reason* to believe in something.

Using the example I can claim "there is a high probability that all Ravens are black."

(In this system) Someone arguing that not all Ravens are black would need to give greater reason to believe that not all ravens are black - demonstrate albinoism is possible in ravens for example.

The whole idea of me putting forward this was that there were a lot of discussions happening where it seemed we were arguing "oranges and lemons" - we weren't discussing a problem using the same system. I am suggesting this system as a basis for discussion so that we don't run into the misunderstandings (I think) there have been.

I personally think that consensus is important in discussion - if your not trying to reach consensus your just arguing for its own sake, which I personally want to avoid.

The formalised structure is an obvious choice compared to anything else in my opinion, but I welcome any other suggestions. If nothing else it communicates where I'm coming from, which lets other people identify where their method of seeking truth differs from mine.

 

[restin]

It serves its purposes here - communication. But there are topics where you just cannot relate on logic...

I disagree that the sentence you refer to is saying that - there may be false gods, and nothing but false gods for example.

I don't understand you answer...

Using the example I can claim "there is a high probability that all Ravens are black."

(In this system) Someone arguing that not all Ravens are black would need to give greater reason to believe that not all ravens are black - demonstrate albinoism is possible in ravens for example.

This is a funny thing. Let's say: all swans are white. Imagine yourself seeing a green swan in a pond - is it then still a swan?

 

[Pariah]

"There are topics where you just cannot relate on logic."
I agree - in such a case it would be a good idea to note that is the case - If someone says "I believe this because of the feeling I get about it" it isn't really claiming a logical reason - its something personal - there cannot really be discussion about it unless someone else *feels* the same way, or *feels* differently.

For instance a spiritual experience can give a sense of peace in your life - the fact that logic says it is produced by pathology - namely the imbalance of neurotransmitters; has little or no bearing on the feeling in my opinion.

"I don't understand you answer... "

You said that claiming there is such a thing as a false god suggests the existence of true gods - I was just saying that the sentence wasn't saying that: I think it only suggests that *if* there are false gods its a good idea to discover that fact.


"is it then still a swan?"

Good question!
The question goes into areas covered when you discuss the problem of personal identity - the "identity" part is what I'm refering to... Do you *really* want me to go into it? Might be a good demonstration of modern philosophy, but also might bore you to tears.

... if not you can just look up definitions and put them together yourself, such as:

Essence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
Accident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
Qualitative and numerical identity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)

...All of this leads to a whole new kettle of fish including the transitivity of identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitivity_of_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

 

[????????]

(In this system) Someone arguing that not all Ravens are black would need to give greater reason to believe that not all ravens are black - demonstrate albinoism is possible in ravens for example.

This is a funny thing. Let's say: all swans are white. Imagine yourself seeing a green swan in a pond - is it then still a swan?

if someone sees a green swan then the generalization is revised to fit the new data. saying all ravens are black based on the fact all you've seen are indeed black is not a definite belief but it is useful anyway. that's the magic of probabilities. it works. we use that kind of reasoning all the time. the paper makes this clear when differentiating between deduction and induction (this case).

 

[restin]

if someone sees a green swan then the generalization is revised to fit the new data. saying all ravens are black based on the fact all you've seen are indeed black is not a definite belief but it is useful anyway. that's the magic of probabilities. it works. we use that kind of reasoning all the time. the paper makes this clear when differentiating between deduction and induction (this case).

Yes, this is an adjustment then. I just wanted to underline that logic has a -practical- sense but not an -absolute- one.

Essence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
Accident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

yesyesyes! These are exactly the two last words -essence&accident- that close our discussion and builds a fundament for an agreement. Fine.

 

[ophiuchus]

haven't gottten around to reading yet, bookmarking it now so i get the emails sent to me on new posts (so i dont lose the link)