Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:23 am

Hell is just what happens in basements.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL - QBLH - No Country For Shrinks: The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10069
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:28 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Hell is just what happens in basements.



Mostly in debasements
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:34 am

True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL - QBLH - No Country For Shrinks: The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10069
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:39 am

Fixed Cross wrote:True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.



{See a movie "Platform" if get the chance. It's literally about that.


Redemption is on the very bottom, not to give away the plot.}
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:54 am

quote="Fixed Cross"]True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.[/quote
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:57 am

Meno_ wrote:quote="Fixed Cross"]True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.[/quote




I knew one who exited heaven from the bottom.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby gib » Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:24 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Tab, you said in a thread I read this morning that you are driven mostly by logic. Loose paraphrase.

My objection is that everyone thinks this of themselves.

My contention is that no one has logically derived that s/he is driven by logic, or mostly lives by logic, or mostly follows logic in arriving at conclusions and at actions, reactions and life-stratagems.

My challenge is, can you please explain logically how it is that you are a logically driven character.

Disclaimer: I consider you righteous smart. But I do not think this is rooted in your intellectual methods.


Very few people truly understand what logic is--formally speaking--that is, as a set of rules by which propositions can be derived from other propositions--and they confuse it merely with the flow of their thoughts in moments of serious engagement with reality (i.e. trying to figure reality out).

The fact is, the flow of our thoughts will always come with a sense of necessity or justification--one thought always leading to the next--but this is a feeling that comes with all mental states; take anger for example. We feel that our angry mood justifies lashing out or hurting someone--they deserve it, we say--but this is not formal logic--it's just a bit of self-scrutiny to show how our mental state gave rise to our actions or further mental states--in such a way that we hope others will see it as justified. We're doing something similar when we argue our points in philosophy or debate--we're trying to show what thoughts we started with in the hopes that everyone will see how those thoughts reasonably give rise to the conclusions we arrived at. We hope that the same flow will occur in their minds when we start them off with the same thoughts we started off with, and if so, we share a common feeling of justification or necessity, which is just how such a flow feels.

But formal logic is more than just this feeling of justification or necessity, it is also the set of rules our thoughts must follow in order to get reality right. We must hone our thoughts, structure the flow, such that we make a habit of following these rules, making them second nature, and always testing them against reality to confirm that we got it right. We learn these rules slowly as we develop from childhood to adulthood, committing the common mistakes you find in any beginners guide to logic (under the section Logical Fallacies), and being shown that they are mistakes by the way reality turns out different from what you predict. Eager to get things right, the child learns not to make those mistakes, how to think in a different way that more reliably yields predictions that do match with reality, and eventually develops at least a rudimentary set of logical rules (although in most adults, this doesn't get perfected).

Now the rub is that in order to figure out reality, one must have not only a set of reliable rules for thinking, but a set of assumptions, of starting points--and these cannot be derived logically (or if they are, then whatever started that logic had to be derived by some other means). Most people would say that empirical experience is where it starts--I experience something in the real world and that becomes an original thought from which I can follow a line of logic to arrive at certain conclusions--and there is truth to this--but I find most of the time, people start with assumptions that are inherited from faith in the words of other people--authority figures, teachers, parents, preachers, scientists, whatever source you trust--and we begin our arguments with these, not because they are logical--simple as that--but because we assume they aren't too controversial (that is, that most people will agree with us anyway).

^ This is one of the biggest misconceptions about logic. Logic alone is useless for figuring out anything about reality--it's just a set of rules, not facts--you need to start with certain pre-logical assumptions--and all logic can do is show you where you can go from there.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:43 am

gib wrote:^ This is one of the biggest misconceptions about logic. Logic alone is useless for figuring out anything about reality--it's just a set of rules, not facts--you need to start with certain pre-logical assumptions--and all logic can do is show you where you can go from there.
Exactly. People will fight this position endlessly. I had one guy on another forum recently telling me that with logic alone you could figure out everything. I asked for examples, then pointed out all the information, in those examples that had come via perception, empirical study and assumptions (intuitive or other) and then that the person had used logic on propositions based on these to draw conclusions. He just laughed at me. I might as well have been questioning the existence of Zeus.

I think this is connected to people wanting to think they are utterly logical (read: rational, read: right). They want it all to be clear, all their beliefs, and that they can be proved. And that no religion, cultural biases, intuition, guesswork, perception issues, psychological issues, the fact that they are time-bound primate, 5 sense organisms are having any effects on any of their conclusions. So, logic has to be both foundation and process, nothing else. Unlike other people.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby gib » Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:38 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I had one guy on another forum recently telling me that with logic alone you could figure out everything.


Did he go by James S Saint?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:26 pm

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning. quora

That's why I always suggest we need an actual context in which to explore this distinction given our reactions to the behaviors that we choose. Especially in sets of circumstances in which these behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. Moral and political assessments for example. Or, for others, esthetic evaluations.

Logic seems more about precision given rules of language given a species able to construct one. Being reasonable on the other hand often seems harder to pin down.

For all practical purposes in particular.

We clearly come into this world with a "built-in" genetic/biological capacity to invent language. But, having invented it, what, when, where, how etc., might there be limitations imposed on it, given a particular context.

Assuming of course some measure of free will here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35712
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:56 pm

And challenge has come up recently in reference to a lot of things, as man's prerogative.
Ideomatically, a challenge supreme in reference to fallacious thinking can't differentiate between what is reason able and logical, since they along with most people devalue that difference by virtue (or value) of what such difference has become: almost as one mans opinion against another's.

Why is that one may ask, and the answer really is, foundamentally based on the search for the power that could will it's own zone of safety.

The basic fear of losing that zone, has actualized into primordial angst, and it has transfixed into existential despair.
Not all can transcribe basic nometic structure into transcendent reality, and that is the biggest hurdle.
The closest one can come to overcome that invisible block is through the maps of Tolkien. But those who have successfully cut away the last veils of unreality, need not read fantasy to feel what that means.
It does transfix a grey area between higher -( highest orders ) of logical apprehension, from those that appear of a lower order.

The veil, usually progresses to and include the 6 th.; with the seventh , the key to relevance is forged by sets of keys closed to most but the most earnest and sincere in their attempt to reach it. Those keys , are tantamount to the multifold rings of power, whose reach is available only to the those unacquainted with the basic connections of how to traverse the differing realms of power.
The lack of inducement , or the power of trying to deal with them as barter , immediately breaks the invisible chain.

Hence, there remains no trace dof any sensible deduciable luminosity as do the onset of a twilight brought on by the gods' themselves return to Walhalla.


Note: zone of safety is representative of( ref: Schopenhauer's the world as will and representation) very early, or, earliest attempt to form a logical system out of spatial-geometric arrangements, which in modern terms is characterized on basis of -fight or flight . Giving rise to the notion of the spatial origin to logical sequencing.
If understood this way, necessary logic is a posteriori, to induce a higher, formal , less substantial structural form of it.
Although, this is also debatable.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:28 pm

Meno_ wrote:And challenge has come up recently in reference to a lot of things, as man's prerogative.
Ideomatically, a challenge supreme in reference to fallacious thinking can't differentiate between what is reason able and logical, since they along with most people devalue that difference by virtue (or value) of what such difference has become: almost as one mans opinion against another's.

Why is that one may ask, and the answer really is, foundamentally based on the search for the power that could will it's own zone of safety.

The basic fear of losing that zone, has actualized into primordial angst, and it has transfixed into existential despair.
Not all can transcribe basic nometic structure into transcendent reality, and that is the biggest hurdle.
The closest one can come to overcome that invisible block is through the maps of Tolkien. But those who have successfully cut away the last veils of unreality, need not read fantasy to feel what that means.
It does transfix a grey area between higher -( highest orders ) of logical apprehension, from those that appear of a lower order.

The veil, usually progresses to and include the 6 th.; with the seventh , the key to relevance is forged by sets of keys closed to most but the most earnest and sincere in their attempt to reach it. Those keys , are tantamount to the multifold rings of power, whose reach is available only to the those unacquainted with the basic connections of how to traverse the differing realms of power.
The lack of inducement , or the power of trying to deal with them as barter , immediately breaks the invisible chain.

Hence, there remains no trace dof any sensible deduciable luminosity as do the onset of a twilight brought on by the gods' themselves return to Walhalla.


Note: zone of safety is representative of( ref: Schopenhauer's ' The World as Will and Representation) very early, or, earliest attempt to form a logical system out of spatial-geometric arrangements, which in modern terms is characterized on basis of -fight or flight . Giving rise to the notion of the spatial origin to logical sequencing.
If understood this way, necessary logic is a posteriori, to induce a higher, formal , less substantial structural form of it.
Although, this is also debatable.



Sorry: double post.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:08 pm

This is why I use the guerrilla logic of valuing-based arguments and you end up with a kind of geometry, mapping the terrains and substances in terms of the self-conscious premise.

In absence of being a creator-God who can scope out the whole deal in one glance, I need to anchor myself somewheres and deep in it enough that it doesn't matter what substance it is;
whatever the substance, whatever the meaning, and whatever the logic, my premises are equipped at least to compare to nature's premises, even if identity logic has a hard time reading through the camouflage. But then there is always Darwin.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL - QBLH - No Country For Shrinks: The Huuluguns
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10069
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:53 pm

I think it's safe to say . . . We all agree that not all beliefs are formed via deductive reasoning (a.k.a. logic) and that there are beliefs that are formed by other means such as imagination. (Pretty much in alignment with Popper's hypothetico-deductive model which is an idea previously introduced by Sir Charles Sanders Peirce.)

But I'm sad to see there isn't much love for deduction. Of course, deduction is about following rules, but does that mean it's less significant (not to mention insignificant)?

Here's a question:

What percentage of our beliefs is a product of deduction and what percentage a product of imagination?

How many beliefs are axiomatic (= pre-logical = conjectural = hypothetical)?
And how many are logically derived?

I'm inclined to think that around 95% of all of our beliefs are either logically deduced or based on direct sensory experience and only around 5% are axiomatic. And though a good chunk of 95% of them are produced by the repetitive, mechanistic, process that consists in nothing more than following a set of boring rules, this does not mean it's an easy thing to do. We use calculators for a reason.

It's easy to make a logical mistake. Even easier if there are people trying to ensure that people make one. And one must also take into account that it is these final beliefs, the deduced ones, that have a direct influence on what we do in life.

And what about disagreements between people?
To what extent are they caused by different axioms and to what extent by differences in things such as logical ability and experience?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4255
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:20 pm

gib wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I had one guy on another forum recently telling me that with logic alone you could figure out everything.


Did he go by James S Saint?
No, I haven't seen James for a while.
And this argument was in the last week. James was much smarter than whoever it was, so it wasn't an alter ego, unless James was playing dumb.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning. quora
I don't think that makes much sense.
1) I wouldn't call logic a science.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Sciences are empirical, logic isn't. Logic has to do with premises and conclusions and the relationship between propositions.
2) Logic seeks...(nope it doesn't seek and it doesn't seek tangible or visible proof, let alone 'audible'

I doubt anyone remotely expert wrote that.

That's why I always suggest we need an actual context in which to explore this distinction given our reactions to the behaviors that we choose.

What's why? You suggest actual context because of what that ridiculous statement says logic seeks? But that statement is incorrect. In fact it is closer to describing empirical research, not logic, expect that it mentions 'proof'.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:32 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
gib wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I had one guy on another forum recently telling me that with logic alone you could figure out everything.


Did he go by James S Saint?
No, I haven't seen James for a while.
And this argument was in the last week. James was much smarter than whoever it was, so it wasn't an alter ego, unless James was playing dumb.


James died 2 years ago, I think.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4255
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:54 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
That's why I always suggest we need an actual context in which to explore this distinction given our reactions to the behaviors that we choose.

What's why? You suggest actual context because of what that ridiculous statement says logic seeks? But that statement is incorrect. In fact it is closer to describing empirical research, not logic, expect that it mentions 'proof'.


We'll need an actual context here as well. A set of circumstances in which men and women choose particular behaviors in interacting. Then they have a discussion regarding the consequences of those interactions.

The words "logical" and "reasonable" will come up and the serious philosophers here can note for us what "for all practical purposes" the distinction is.

You pick it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35712
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:06 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
James died 2 years ago, I think.
That's the impression I got. But I never knew if the people who said it knew for sure.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:09 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:I think it's safe to say . . . We all agree that not all beliefs are formed via deductive reasoning (a.k.a. logic) and that there are beliefs that are formed by other means such as imagination. (Pretty much in alignment with Popper's hypothetico-deductive model which is an idea previously introduced by Sir Charles Sanders Peirce.)

But I'm sad to see there isn't much love for deduction. Of course, deduction is about following rules, but does that mean it's less significant (not to mention insignificant)?

Here's a question:

What percentage of our beliefs is a product of deduction and what percentage a product of imagination?

How many beliefs are axiomatic (= pre-logical = conjectural = hypothetical)?
And how many are logically derived?

I'm inclined to think that around 95% of all of our beliefs are either logically deduced or based on direct sensory experience and only around 5% are axiomatic. And though a good chunk of 95% of them are produced by the repetitive, mechanistic, process that consists in nothing more than following a set of boring rules, this does not mean it's an easy thing to do. We use calculators for a reason.

It's easy to make a logical mistake. Even easier if there are people trying to ensure that people make one. And one must also take into account that it is these final beliefs, the deduced ones, that have a direct influence on what we do in life.

And what about disagreements between people?
To what extent are they caused by different axioms and to what extent by differences in things such as logical ability and experience?


To me this is just another example of a "general description intellectual contraption" that "serious philosophers" love to exchange. This time about logic.

Is it logical? Is it reasonable? Well, it would seem this depends on whether or not others agree with the definition and the meaning given to one set of words insofar as they establish or sustain the definition and the meaning of another set of words.

On the other hand, what is the use value and the exchange value of these definitions and meanings in regard to making a distinction between arguments of those on, say, either side of any particular set of conflicting goods?

And, no, not just abortion. That just happens to be own favorite.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35712
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:12 am

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
That's why I always suggest we need an actual context in which to explore this distinction given our reactions to the behaviors that we choose.

What's why? You suggest actual context because of what that ridiculous statement says logic seeks? But that statement is incorrect. In fact it is closer to describing empirical research, not logic, expect that it mentions 'proof'.


We'll need an actual context here as well.
??? to decide what the word logic means`? Why not back up the definition of logic and reason you quoted from Quora? You presented that to us as, presumably, a rational description of these two things. Tell you what. Show us through a context why that statement you quoted makes any sense.

Always presenting your desires as what we need.

Well, show us how it's done. The post I quoted was utterly up in the clouds, abstract, intellectual (and I think wrong). I disagreed with that quotes sense of logic. It is quite incorrect.

I don't suddenly get the onus to now come up with a context.

YOu give a context to made that silly quote by some non.expert at quora and show us how

Logic seeks
How logic wants tangible, visible and audible proof

and all the rest of the idiocy in that quote.

I know, you're Iamb, you never have to back up anything you say.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:36 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
James died 2 years ago, I think.
That's the impression I got. But I never knew if the people who said it knew for sure.


I came across a post where he said that he retired in 1995. That suggests he was born in 1930s. So it's probable.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4255
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:18 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
We'll need an actual context here as well.
??? to decide what the word logic means`? Why not back up the definition of logic and reason you quoted from Quora? You presented that to us as, presumably, a rational description of these two things. Tell you what. Show us through a context why that statement you quoted makes any sense.

Always presenting your desires as what we need.

Well, show us how it's done. The post I quoted was utterly up in the clouds, abstract, intellectual (and I think wrong). I disagreed with that quotes sense of logic. It is quite incorrect.

I don't suddenly get the onus to now come up with a context.

YOu give a context to made that silly quote by some non.expert at quora and show us how

Logic seeks
How logic wants tangible, visible and audible proof

and all the rest of the idiocy in that quote.

I know, you're Iamb, you never have to back up anything you say.


Okay, the context is abortion. There are three discussions. The first revolves around the best way as a medical procedure to abort the unborn. The second discussion revolves around whether it is the right thing or the wrong thing to take the life of an unborn human being. Also, a third discussion commences regarding when, from the moment of conception on, the unborn becomes a human being.

Now, given your own understanding of both logic and reason, what distinctions would you make in each of the three discussions> Would the meaning of the words be interchangeable in all three discussions?

Me?

Well, I make a distinction here between things able to be demonstrated as reasonable for all of us in the either/or world, and things argued to be reasonable given a certain set of assumptions in the is/ought world.

Logic on the other hand pertains more to the words used insofar as they were in sync with the laws of language.

The language that the doctors exchange in performing the abortion either are in sync with these laws of logic...

What Are the Three Laws of Logic?
by ARC on January 6, 2015 in General Apologetics
By J. P. Moreland –

There are three fundamental laws of logic. Suppose P is any indicative sentence, say, “It is raining.”

The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

The law of identity says that if a statement such as “It is raining” is true, then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and its different from everything else. Applied to all realty, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.

The law of noncontradiction says that a statement such as “It is raining” cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place.

The law of the excluded middle says that a statement such as “It is raining” is either true or false. There is no other alternative.


...or they are not. If Doctor Smith says, "Jane Doe was pregnant and had an abortion", how would logic be applicable here? Something either is true or it is not. It cannot be both true and not true. It will be one or the other.

But if Jane Doe had an abortion, was said to have behaved immorally and was arrested for murder, the rules of logic would still be applicable given any number of factors that revolve around a discussion of the actual set of circumstances.

But when it comes to philosophers and ethicists discussing the morality of abortion, conflicting assessments of that which constitutes reasonable behavior, will be found all up and down the political spectrum.

Here the question revolves more around the limitations of language and logic in either reconciling or resolving these conflicted goods.

And, insofar as exploring the idea of challenging tabula rasa re logic, who here can really provide us with a detailed, definitive demonstration of how one makes a distinction between nature and nurture, genes and memes, biology and culture.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35712
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby gib » Wed Apr 22, 2020 6:43 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:I'm inclined to think that around 95% of all of our beliefs are either logically deduced or based on direct sensory experience and only around 5% are axiomatic. And though a good chunk of 95% of them are produced by the repetitive, mechanistic, process that consists in nothing more than following a set of boring rules, this does not mean it's an easy thing to do. We use calculators for a reason.


It's interesting but you'd be surprised how often following logic leads to fewer propositions than what you start out with. Take syllogisms for example:

All Xs are Ys.
This is an X.
Therefore, it is a Y.

You start with two premises, but you can only derive one conclusion.

Kant is an interesting source for pointing out our a priori axiomatic thinking. And I think it makes sense that we would have at least a few. Would help with survival if we were born hardwired to believe at least a few essential axioms.

Magnus Anderson wrote:James died 2 years ago, I think.


You really think that's what happened to him?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:19 am

Gib wrote:You start with two premises, but you can only derive one conclusion.


The major premise is a general statement.

What's the ratio of the total number of general statements imaginable to the total number of specific statements one can imagine?

Pretty low, right?

The minor premise you speak of is a specific statement which, in practice, most commonly represents a belief based on observation or a belief derived from the combination of axiomatic beliefs and beliefs grounded in observations.

You really think that's what happened to him?


Yeah.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4255
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron