The Failure Of Logic

[Al Mirpuri]

The US failed to get people to agree with them on the merit of the arguments. How many countries invaded Iraq? Oh yes, the US, New Zealand and Great Britain. Silly me, I forgot Poland.

I have an advanced understanding of human nature, especially yours...

Violence leads to a resolution of most problems...though on occasion it perpetuates them.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
The US failed to get people to agree with them on the merit of the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the other peope were on the take. Read 'Oil for Food Program'.

[ QUOTE ]
Violence leads to a resolution of most problems...

[/ QUOTE ]

This form of problem resolution is extremely inefficient. It basically takes the form of - eliminate the antagonist and the problem goes away.

Usually, though, the problem will repeat itself because although you may have resolved the problem THIS time, you haven't found a solution.

Dov

[Cerril]

During my time in college I sort of had an unofficial concentration in logic. I realized a couple things while I was taking far too many classes in the subject ('too many' is when you stop learning new stuff and repeating the same material)

First, people in general don't have a firm enough grasp on what logic is. It should be required for all majors and far more rigorous than it is - when I took my first courses they were required but very much 'easy A' classes. I learned quite a bit but mostly because I cared more about learning than the grade (which came naturally). That and fortunately our 'textbooks' were highly interesting.

Second, even people with a firm foundation in fields where you should expect an understanding of logic tend to often just miss it entirely. I've commented many times (to the great boredom of my friends and family) how the way that many degrees (particularly 'fluff' ones like philosophy) are taught can be quite damaging to people following the curriculums. Thinking clearly should be required before you ever start reading what other people have thought, or you risk never learning more than what they had to say, and never why. Thinking and writing clearly should be required before you ever start being required to come up with your own ideas, or you'll never be able to communicate them.

Anyway, the point is I agree with you. Logic, reason, rational thought, and other similar terms are often attacked unjustly by people who have little understanding what the terms even mean. Proponents of logic will not generally claim more for its sphere of influence than it can actually handle, but those who attack it often try to shove more in there and create a straw man.

[carlo]

I did say that truth and logic are not the same but the logic is contained in the truthful realities.

You seem to think that one owns logic as an object much like your automobile or your home. Logic is not owned by any man but is contained in truth irrespective of your beliefs. Logic cannot be used to justify actions as in this case you are mixing up logic and desire(or will).

Logic by your definition is called sophistry by which anything can be proved and therefore nothing will be valid. Emptiness in motion is that realm and the grasp of reality is only tenuous at best.

You CANNOT own logic anymore than you can own the air no matter how hard you try.

regards,
carlo

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic by your definition is called sophistry by which anything can be proved and therefore nothing will be valid. Emptiness in motion is that realm and the grasp of reality is only tenuous at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Dov was talking about logic and valid arguments. Sophistry is a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

I don't know what 'logic is contained in the truthful realities' means. Would you care to explain.

chez

[carlo]

Your definition of sophistry is of course subject to question as an argument can be quite clear to its proponent, and sincere in approach, and still be sophistical reasoning. You're asking me to condemn Dov thereby flaming more fire which is obviously not needed.

Forget your definition-respond to the "logic of ownership"-again I will state that one can desire an object, believe in the "logical approach" as stated in the previous threads and perform corrupt and henious deeds. But this is not logic. I can make the case that the person involved in the commission of this deed would have been more logical if he had given up and surrendered.

Are the two scenerios logical? Is one more logical than the other? Are they both equally logical? In each case logic is overcome by desire and therin is the flaw in the syllogism of abstract materiality. Logic cannot be used as a justification of self but as the perceptive aid to the apperance of truth. To say that logically I chose to perform an act is like saying "the devil made me do it".

In chemistry we have an equation in which:

A + B = C + D + warmth

Herein we may have, as an example an acid-base reaction in which is known that two new substances(C,D) are formed in this reaction whose characteristics are often "miles away" from the original(A,B). The logic in this system is contained within(between) the original and reactive truths(resultants). Now this reaction may have been "discovered" by a human scientist but in no way does he "own" the discovery. The results and the connections are intrinsic to the total reaction and it is possible for a man to appreciate the connections and therefore we have the equation which purports to manifest the reality. The +'s and ='s are symbols of an activity which is DIVORCED from our desires and feelings. They are without us and are the logical connections in this work of nature. Of note is the"=" which displays the activity known as "metamorphosis"
in which an entirely new substance is formed. The present day scientist sees the end result with very little thought given to the activity in itself which is the "wonder" of the happening.

This is an activity of nature and therein is wisdom which man can come to appreciate and therefore he approaches truth. The truth in that reaction can be agreed upon by man and perhaps even without contention(but there is more).

That being said, it would seem that the above is a justification of science and so it is but it is not a justification of scientific materialism.

regards,

carlo

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget your definition-respond to the "logic of ownership"-again I will state that one can desire an object, believe in the "logical approach" as stated in the previous threads and perform corrupt and heinous deeds. But this is not logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. Logic draws conclusions from premises. It can never demonstrate that any conclusion is good/bad/heinous/anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
Logic cannot be used as a justification of self but as the perceptive aid to the appearance of truth. To say that logically I chose to perform an act is like saying "the devil made me do it".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I agree. Logic can't be used to justify any act in itself. Logical conclusions don't 'add' anything, the justification must reside in the premises.

None of this is different to dov's point about logic and validity.


So maybe we agree and it's a problem of communication. I still don't understand what your point about truth is. Logical validity just show that if some premises are true then so are the logically derived conclusions. It can never address the problem of whether the inital premises are true.

I also don't understand your point about possessing logic. To some extent we possess the ability to reason logically (that may be a tautology) and to do this we use logic. Like your analogy with air, we posses the ability to breath and we use air to do so.

and yes the definition of sophistry can be disputed but I don't believe any valid argument clearly present with premises and conclusions can be called sophistical.

Forgive me if my responses sometimes seem rude, I haven't yet got the hang of text based discussion. I wasn't trying to fan flames.


chez

[carlo]

I appreciate your gracious response and hope I can make what I'm saying a little clearer.

I have to ask: 1)Whence came this logic?
2) How is one logical?
3) Is there an organ of logic in the body?

It seems to me that logic as an activity needs the past and future to be known in order to be proper and correct. Modern physics deals with perceived qualities/quantities and from these attempt to logically connect the "universal workings". A great deal of thought power is used in order to ascertain the truthful realities of the world. The connections between these realities in their present state of mind do not appear within the logic of our present understanding. They will of course not dare call nature illogical(maybe) but they do work to ascertain the logical connections in that world in order to have a predictive value for the future. Once they are able to do this(connection between past and future) will the logic of the universe be perceived, thus the logical connection will be made and the scientist "has logic".

Please note that the logic is in the truth in this experience. That would be the empirical scientific methodology approach.

As to Man I would agree he has the logic within himself but this can only be understood in consideration that the past is contained within his body and the logical connections are present in what may be called an evolutionary sense.

How does Man know the truth? It is because he has experienced the truth-full activity and logical connections in the past and recognizes the truth which is spirit filled reality. This can only be grasped if one understands that spiritual experiences of the human being prior to conception manifest as the body of men. Man does not have to consciously see this past but he can recognize the truths involved as he has seen them prior to birth. Truth and its connections are within us and in this way we work on our redemption in being. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

regards,
carlo

[Dov]

I think you are confusing 2 different logical approaches which are both necessary. Logic is a human invention. It was not discovered. Math is invented, not discovered. Both of these fields are subject to expansion and criticism all the time.

In the scientific method with which you seem to be most familiar, we begin with a collection of data. Once a significant data sample is obtained, it is examined for relationships to other known related phenomena.

Culling the relationships from this data is inductive reasoning. You are drawing conclusions based on your observed sample. The most obvious limitations of your conclusions are the accuracy of your measurements and your sample size.

The next step is to use deductive reasoning to try and predict a future outcome of a related experiment. If the deductions are correct, they will be true in all cases for which a significant sample can be found. When a sample is found that does not conform, the argument or model must be revised to reflect the exact observed reality.

This, of course leads to further collection of data and further inference and deductions.

In the sciences, the goal is to understand the nature of things. In mathematics and philosophy, the nature of things is sometimes subordinated to the procedure being discussed.

Dov

[chezlaw]

Hi Carlo

I think we are not so much disagreeing as talking about different things.

Logic, as I understand it, is nothing to do with the nature of the world. Logic is concerned with necessary truths that follow from other truths.

'If I'm a pink pussycat then I'm a pink pussycat' is true

'if I'm a pink pussycat and pink pussycats have magic powers then I have magic powers' is true.

We recognize the truth of these statements because the meaning of the 'parts' guarantees that the 'whole' is true. This is logic.

I think you are using logic to describe the truth behind how the universe operates and that it is this truth (logic) that the scientist is attempting to possess. In this case, I agree that I possess no logic [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez