You do have faith in Logic. it is circular logic no matter how you try to prove it. Also if you try to use expeirence, you are just as "irrational" as Christians, because they believe in God because it works. It probably works more for them because they have reason to beleive in Logic, the uniformity of nature, an actual moral law and not just a moral agreement; and on a more than subject scale. Their beleif actually makes them have reason that the laws of nature will hold, while atheists don't.
maybe now you can see how at every moment in our lives we use faith, we have faith the sun will rise, when we buy an airline ticket on the net we have faith that our money is in the right hands and not a thief, the general public has faith in the scientist, yet their theories change every couple of years. we have a personal experience that logic works so in the same way very serious theists(Christians, Bhuddists, Hare Krishnas) have had a personal experience of god and feel constantly joyful
the only other things there are besides logic are physical and emotional, so in order to not fall into a unlogical trap of the loop, you have to use emotion or something physical to. but that itself is illogical. so either way you go your FUCKED.
The most interesting thing about this video is that it is marked down to 2 stars. Maybe it's because it's a response video to the Atheist Experience and the video questions the premise of Atheism. Too many Aism fundies?
It's tough to question the validity of logic & reason in the same way that it's tough to question communication. One has to reason and communicate simply to ask the question itself. It's more of an indication about how there aren't really any absolutes, just 'best evidence'.
hmm. i got asked a similar question at camp once about the scientific method.
the scientific method is basicallly saying that if something happens it will happen again. and we know it works because its worked for us in the past, which is kind of circular
No no noo.. because logical statements can be wrong, its not up to it working...
Logic is the way where you sum up statements... and it can be falible..
If you say you have faith in logic, and that you trust a logic statment to be true, your wrong... you have to get down on you knees with a pickaxe and get it to work yourself.
Like:
Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white..
How do you prove your spelling is correct? Well there is written books on how its done, same with logic..... and... you need knowledge on how that state of the world is to make logical statments...
I think more, logic is the title, and then there is faulty logic and true logic..
We want true logical statements, therefore we use logic and work to make them, but we may fail..
This is the best I can think off, guess even logic is subject to logic :P
Logic is useful and seems to have a good track record in comparison to faith. By using logic, we have been able to solve many problems as a species mainly in the fields of science. Logic, in this manner, is self-correcting whereas faith is not.
I am aware that this is, again, simply using logic to prove logic, but ultimately, what you would end up with is a problem with epistemology in near-Descartian proportions, and the problem that I have with solipsism is that it offers no replacement.
Logic is a process of deduction. As you go through school and life you will learn that getting into useless quasi intellectual debates (like this one) dont do a lot of good.
Faith has multiple meanings...and can be based on experience. Faith in a God is the stupid kind of faith. 'Faith' that the next time a hockey team coached by Jaques Lemaire (google it) will use the trap and be like skating through pudding is another type of faith entirely.
yeah and to prove it you use deduction. it's not useless to debate this. debating difficult subjects improves your debating skills. Which is very useful for philosophy.
there is belief with proof and belief without. faith with proof is knowledge. or deduction that something is likely.
i think you need to stop looking down on me. i don;t know many things but i know philosophy.
Well by insulting me you've proved that you are no further ahead spiritually of philosophically. This is metaphysics and its the base of all philosophy above it. if you were a thinker you would debate. but you are nothing more than a prick.
I'm not insulting YOU I am pointing out that your point is pothead philosophy. I Have used pothead philosophy back wen I was young and overthought things myself. Your premise fails on all levels and has actually been addressed many times in many universities through the years.
It's completely valid philosophy. And it's a sound question. in going to study university and have searched the question and have never found a satisfactory answer. If you have one give it. if not the your adding nothing to the discussion at all apart from some weak emotive response.
You don't have to have any faith in logic what so ever to rely on it. It is simple, because logic is a source of reliance on outcomes that have been known previously. Such as you could take a square peg and try a million times to put it into a round hole. As long as you are not damaging the peg or the hole it probably will never succeed. Unless you want to be an ass and make the square peg small enough to fit into a round hole to make the statement true. Logic becomes a basis for future reason.
"Logic" don't require faith just as "Philosophy" don't. A logical conclusion does, as do a philosophical viewpoint.
Logic only works when having a defined set of "rules" (assumptions).
E.g
Logic: When I do something, something will be done.
Assumption: Cause and effect
As you can see, only the validity of the assumptions need faith. Personally, I try to use my experience to ascertain the probability that my assumptions are true on a case by case basis.
Of course, this requires the assumption "I exist and can trust my senses/experiences"...
Hope this helps! If not, tell me what part bugs you and I will try to clarify. (Man, is it hard to try and explain ones views on such a "deep" subject in a second language!)
One dictionary definition of faith is having confidence or trust in a person or thing. By definition you can have faith in logic as it has been proven a useful tool. I have faith in gravity because it has always worked for me. Religious people build faith by only accepting the positive proof for their beliefs. They build confidence by ignoring anything that would cause doubt. A second definition is a belief not based on truth. A word with opposing definitions should be used at your own risk.
One more thing- this notion that you have to have faith in science in the same way that people have religious faith is ridiculous. Like Sam Harris said- notice how people don't tend to say that when they're cruising in an aeroplane at 30,000ft... Clutching at straws, give it up, please.
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's where, in my opinion, philosophy ceases to be any good whatsoever and disappears up it's own arse. It is using words as if they have an almost mathematical precision, and arranging these words so that they apparently form a paradox. Like someone said above, 'logic' is just too broad a term, you can't pin it down like that. So what is wrong with using logic to prove logic? That is not a paradox-
-The only reason you might think it's a paradox is because I happen to have used the same word twice. It's like saying you can't use science to prove science. Yes you can. If I look at Jupiter through a telescope and plot its orbit, then compare it with mathematical predictions, I have used science to prove science. Paradox? Of course not, science is just too broad a term.
Logic is proved everyday, by the fact that we don't live in an Alice in Wonderland type magic mushroom swirling mad world-
proof of the afterlife - consider the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). We humans have a form of energy. It is what makes us living beings, it is who we are. Obviously, when the breathe of life in us ceases, this energy must change form according to the law of thermodynamics. It is not conjecture then to believe in an afterlife based upon energy and this law of physics.
That is absolutely laughable. If you don't understand physics don't pretend you do. What the hell has the laws of thermodynamics got to do with an afterlife? When you die, trust me, the 1st law of thermodynamics will be perfectly satisfied. (I assume it's this law you have in mind, the fact that you say 'THE law of thermodynamics' suggests that perhaps you weren't aware there is more than one, and that, really, you don't have a clue what you're saying.)
Well, you're correct. I don't understand physics, but it's fact, regardless. Of course there are multiple laws concerning physics, but only one first law, grasshopper. Please excuse me now, I'm leaving for a vacation to the edge of the world. I'm going to leap off into the abyss. I'll send you greetings from the other side.
Well logic can be used to solve problems in real time, thats the difference. I think you might be saying logic as if it were some kind of dogma , but it really isn't dogmatic. Logic doesn't claim to be the answer to everything but as far as existential questions, IMO.....if we want to understand our world it may be the only chance we have.
Logic is the ability to map the causal relationships observed in the outside world. Logic is validated in that it makes accurate predictions about events in the physical world. Logically if you let go of a ball in the presence of earths gravitational field it will fall to the floor. This logical statement is validated by direct repeatable experience.
Course i also side with Occam's Razor in all my logic, poke all ya want at that but i stand by my affirmations while openly accepting ridicule without retort but instead counter points.
Good vid man, and its the same question i already answered for myself.
I use logic all the time, i wish more people did, but hey.
I compared religion stripped of "dogma" down to its roots, god created everything and all the allowances that states.
And science stripped down to 3 laws of thermodynamics with its allowances.
I sided with creation within its own context of parameters because it does not have to break its own rules to justify itself as science has with the big bang theory.
Science has broken it's own rules with the big bang theory?
No it hasn't.
We just don't fully understand the big bang event yet. But we are coming ever closer with modern string theory. Read work by Brian Green or Michio Kaku. Black holes are also places where science appears to break down. Would you describe black holes as floating 'miracles'? ...or just things which we do not yet fully understand?
Logic does not claim to know anything to be true or not. All logic can do is tell us that an argument is valid, or invalid. This is to say that if the premise(s) are true the conclusion MUST be true. However, the argument is still valid if the premise(s) are false and the conclusion is true.
All arguments ultimately stem from "implication" which is usually used as a "horse shoe" in symbolic form;be it in propositional logic, or prepositional logic.
In addition it seems that you think it impossible to "prove" logic. Which isn't ENTIRELY true unless you are trying to use logic to find truth instead of validity.
"You can't prove logic as you correctly point out." We CAN prove logic to be valid, and doing so within it's own rules would NOT be circular. But to say that Logic is true WOULD, rather than valid, WOULD be circular. I hope that clears some things up a bit.
Something is valid as long as no contradictions are possible. However, it does not prove that something is true. (or existential as you acknowledge the problem as)
The problem which you are really asking is a problem which plagues modern philosophy and hasn't (atleast to my knowledge) been answered in respect to modern philosophy.
In short, we can PROVE logic to be VALID but we CANNOT PROVE logic to be TRUE.
It's very fun to think about certainly. I'm looking forward to my epistemology class next semester after studying logic for two semesters.
To be honest, It's fascinating how much philosophy can really be deduced from studying Logic. It is certainly a field of study that deserves much more attention than it currently receives in elementary and high school education. It could even use more attention at institutions of higher education as well.
I've used logic to deduce lots of things. It has always worked. It has never failed me.
Actually it's better than that. If you think about what logic is, logic is tautological. It is true by definition. Here's an example, a basic syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates was mortal.
The conclusion follows directly from the meaning of the statements. All logic and mathematics is like that. You don't need to prove it.
My comment seems to have disappeared. Here it is again:
Consider the inference rule corresponding to my example:
Major premise: All X are Y.
Minor premise: A is an X.
Conclusion: A is a Y.
The statements "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is mortal" are statements about observable reality. The logical inference rule defines what we mean by the generalization "All men are mortal".
Logical inference rules are formal definitions of what logical statements mean.
No. I'm not trying to prove logic, I'm trying to explain to you what (formal) logic is. Logic is just a way of being precise about what we mean when we make statements. You can't prove logic as you correctly point out.
Actually you can prove that first order predicate calculus is consistent and complete, but the proof uses first order predicate calculus, so you at least have to assume that it is consistent. As you correctly point out, there is an obvious problem with this.
It's not really a problem when you understand what logic is. When I make the statement "All men are mortal" I mean that I expect that whenever the statement "X is a man" is true, the statement "X is mortal" is also true. I don't need to prove this because this is just what I mean when I say "All men are mortal". It's an assumption, so no proof is required. All logical inference rules are the same. They can all be interpreted as defining what we mean when we make particular statements.
In terms of science, logical thinking is just a way of taking on information and then reasoning with it to see what it more likely to be true and what is less likely to be true. It is not about discovering "absolute truth". If you think that you can't prove logic at all that's fine, but next time you turn the lights off in your room please assume everything in that room has dissapeared. You're right, it just works. We can prove something we call 'logic' just by using it, even if it's wrong.
It's called being a "believer" for a reason you moron.
AverageTricks 3 weeks ago
You do have faith in Logic. it is circular logic no matter how you try to prove it. Also if you try to use expeirence, you are just as "irrational" as Christians, because they believe in God because it works. It probably works more for them because they have reason to beleive in Logic, the uniformity of nature, an actual moral law and not just a moral agreement; and on a more than subject scale. Their beleif actually makes them have reason that the laws of nature will hold, while atheists don't.
dannytheshort 1 year ago
so what's logic really? another form of faith?
guitarhero666759 1 year ago
maybe now you can see how at every moment in our lives we use faith, we have faith the sun will rise, when we buy an airline ticket on the net we have faith that our money is in the right hands and not a thief, the general public has faith in the scientist, yet their theories change every couple of years. we have a personal experience that logic works so in the same way very serious theists(Christians, Bhuddists, Hare Krishnas) have had a personal experience of god and feel constantly joyful
guitarhero666759 1 year ago
You're good.
subconcioussongsvid 1 year ago
Do you have any doubts about physical cause and effect?
The best I can work it out, logic is nothing but a mental version of cause and effect. When it's used right, of course.
Anon11674 1 year ago
Hehe! I like this I had never thought of logic like this before!
rainbowrockss 2 years ago
the only other things there are besides logic are physical and emotional, so in order to not fall into a unlogical trap of the loop, you have to use emotion or something physical to. but that itself is illogical. so either way you go your FUCKED.
thramagen 2 years ago
The most interesting thing about this video is that it is marked down to 2 stars. Maybe it's because it's a response video to the Atheist Experience and the video questions the premise of Atheism. Too many Aism fundies?
It's tough to question the validity of logic & reason in the same way that it's tough to question communication. One has to reason and communicate simply to ask the question itself. It's more of an indication about how there aren't really any absolutes, just 'best evidence'.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
hmm. i got asked a similar question at camp once about the scientific method.
the scientific method is basicallly saying that if something happens it will happen again. and we know it works because its worked for us in the past, which is kind of circular
flamethrowerabc 2 years ago
No no noo.. because logical statements can be wrong, its not up to it working...
Logic is the way where you sum up statements... and it can be falible..
If you say you have faith in logic, and that you trust a logic statment to be true, your wrong... you have to get down on you knees with a pickaxe and get it to work yourself.
Like:
Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white..
Statement dont work cause of lack of knowledge..
AroArgumentum 2 years ago
I think....
How do you prove your spelling is correct? Well there is written books on how its done, same with logic..... and... you need knowledge on how that state of the world is to make logical statments...
I think more, logic is the title, and then there is faulty logic and true logic..
We want true logical statements, therefore we use logic and work to make them, but we may fail..
This is the best I can think off, guess even logic is subject to logic :P
AroArgumentum 2 years ago
Logic is useful and seems to have a good track record in comparison to faith. By using logic, we have been able to solve many problems as a species mainly in the fields of science. Logic, in this manner, is self-correcting whereas faith is not.
I am aware that this is, again, simply using logic to prove logic, but ultimately, what you would end up with is a problem with epistemology in near-Descartian proportions, and the problem that I have with solipsism is that it offers no replacement.
Yansver 2 years ago
The best response i have found is without logic there is no reason not to believe in logic. So it's a valid choice..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I think you got a little too philosophical there. But we base logic on "what works", like you said. Practical use is (the faith in) Logic.
PsoMyth 2 years ago
Yeah i do that..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
On cannot have faith in logic.
Logic dictates that one may be incorrect or incorrect or depending on the question, any other reasonable conclusion.
Your question really has nothing to do with the notion of God.
ThieleM 2 years ago
Faith = belief without proof
you cannot prove logic to be correct.. you cannot prove reason etc. therefore it you use it you use it in faith.
Faith is the same thing that drives god. i have my own answer to this question but i want yours. :P
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Logic is a process of deduction. As you go through school and life you will learn that getting into useless quasi intellectual debates (like this one) dont do a lot of good.
Faith has multiple meanings...and can be based on experience. Faith in a God is the stupid kind of faith. 'Faith' that the next time a hockey team coached by Jaques Lemaire (google it) will use the trap and be like skating through pudding is another type of faith entirely.
ThieleM 2 years ago
yeah and to prove it you use deduction. it's not useless to debate this. debating difficult subjects improves your debating skills. Which is very useful for philosophy.
there is belief with proof and belief without. faith with proof is knowledge. or deduction that something is likely.
i think you need to stop looking down on me. i don;t know many things but i know philosophy.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Does this mean I cant use an apple to prove an apple?
This video is pothead philosophy at its best....
ThieleM 2 years ago
Well by insulting me you've proved that you are no further ahead spiritually of philosophically. This is metaphysics and its the base of all philosophy above it. if you were a thinker you would debate. but you are nothing more than a prick.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I'm not insulting YOU I am pointing out that your point is pothead philosophy. I Have used pothead philosophy back wen I was young and overthought things myself. Your premise fails on all levels and has actually been addressed many times in many universities through the years.
ThieleM 2 years ago
It's completely valid philosophy. And it's a sound question. in going to study university and have searched the question and have never found a satisfactory answer. If you have one give it. if not the your adding nothing to the discussion at all apart from some weak emotive response.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
You don't have to have any faith in logic what so ever to rely on it. It is simple, because logic is a source of reliance on outcomes that have been known previously. Such as you could take a square peg and try a million times to put it into a round hole. As long as you are not damaging the peg or the hole it probably will never succeed. Unless you want to be an ass and make the square peg small enough to fit into a round hole to make the statement true. Logic becomes a basis for future reason.
Relativisticism 2 years ago
"Logic" don't require faith just as "Philosophy" don't. A logical conclusion does, as do a philosophical viewpoint.
Logic only works when having a defined set of "rules" (assumptions).
E.g
Logic: When I do something, something will be done.
Assumption: Cause and effect
As you can see, only the validity of the assumptions need faith. Personally, I try to use my experience to ascertain the probability that my assumptions are true on a case by case basis.
navimud 2 years ago
Of course, this requires the assumption "I exist and can trust my senses/experiences"...
Hope this helps! If not, tell me what part bugs you and I will try to clarify. (Man, is it hard to try and explain ones views on such a "deep" subject in a second language!)
navimud 2 years ago
One dictionary definition of faith is having confidence or trust in a person or thing. By definition you can have faith in logic as it has been proven a useful tool. I have faith in gravity because it has always worked for me. Religious people build faith by only accepting the positive proof for their beliefs. They build confidence by ignoring anything that would cause doubt. A second definition is a belief not based on truth. A word with opposing definitions should be used at your own risk.
das1117 2 years ago
You don't have faith in logic, you have experience that logic works.
Empirical data, derived from reliable measurement or observation.
Try shouting hallelujah then jumping off a cliff.
Or apply logic and don't jump at all.
SuPaKHuNT 2 years ago
logical arguent mate. but thats the problem.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
The point is, logic isn't just useful for 'reasoning' it's also a factor which helps keep you in the gene pool.
You could, theoretically, experiment for the effects of logic over survival in our species.
Were not the fastest or most powerful creature in the environment, the niche we fill is that of cunning, intellect, problem solving.
Logic is not 'the best solution', but it is 'our' solution to the problems of survival.
You do have to apply logic to assess the efficacy of logic.
SuPaKHuNT 2 years ago
You can prove logic tho
A = A, yes i used logic, but its true anyway!
C0ldking 2 years ago
One more thing- this notion that you have to have faith in science in the same way that people have religious faith is ridiculous. Like Sam Harris said- notice how people don't tend to say that when they're cruising in an aeroplane at 30,000ft... Clutching at straws, give it up, please.
thevividhaze 2 years ago
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's where, in my opinion, philosophy ceases to be any good whatsoever and disappears up it's own arse. It is using words as if they have an almost mathematical precision, and arranging these words so that they apparently form a paradox. Like someone said above, 'logic' is just too broad a term, you can't pin it down like that. So what is wrong with using logic to prove logic? That is not a paradox-
thevividhaze 2 years ago
-The only reason you might think it's a paradox is because I happen to have used the same word twice. It's like saying you can't use science to prove science. Yes you can. If I look at Jupiter through a telescope and plot its orbit, then compare it with mathematical predictions, I have used science to prove science. Paradox? Of course not, science is just too broad a term.
Logic is proved everyday, by the fact that we don't live in an Alice in Wonderland type magic mushroom swirling mad world-
thevividhaze 2 years ago
-where nothing can be predicted.
So stop playing with words and go and do something useful.
thevividhaze 2 years ago
proof of the afterlife - consider the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). We humans have a form of energy. It is what makes us living beings, it is who we are. Obviously, when the breathe of life in us ceases, this energy must change form according to the law of thermodynamics. It is not conjecture then to believe in an afterlife based upon energy and this law of physics.
xvirg 2 years ago
That is absolutely laughable. If you don't understand physics don't pretend you do. What the hell has the laws of thermodynamics got to do with an afterlife? When you die, trust me, the 1st law of thermodynamics will be perfectly satisfied. (I assume it's this law you have in mind, the fact that you say 'THE law of thermodynamics' suggests that perhaps you weren't aware there is more than one, and that, really, you don't have a clue what you're saying.)
thevividhaze 2 years ago
Well, you're correct. I don't understand physics, but it's fact, regardless. Of course there are multiple laws concerning physics, but only one first law, grasshopper. Please excuse me now, I'm leaving for a vacation to the edge of the world. I'm going to leap off into the abyss. I'll send you greetings from the other side.
Tallyho, Laddie
xvirg 2 years ago
Comment removed
thevividhaze 2 years ago
"Logic" is too broad a term, I think. If you want to prove a specific axiom or rule, then you can prove it works
funincluded 2 years ago
Well logic can be used to solve problems in real time, thats the difference. I think you might be saying logic as if it were some kind of dogma , but it really isn't dogmatic. Logic doesn't claim to be the answer to everything but as far as existential questions, IMO.....if we want to understand our world it may be the only chance we have.
damerz0405 2 years ago
I agree. just goes to show the fallability of all things
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Logic is the ability to map the causal relationships observed in the outside world. Logic is validated in that it makes accurate predictions about events in the physical world. Logically if you let go of a ball in the presence of earths gravitational field it will fall to the floor. This logical statement is validated by direct repeatable experience.
TheNewRenaissance 2 years ago
Course i also side with Occam's Razor in all my logic, poke all ya want at that but i stand by my affirmations while openly accepting ridicule without retort but instead counter points.
JonOccamBluecollar 2 years ago
all in all good video
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Cheers
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Good vid man, and its the same question i already answered for myself.
I use logic all the time, i wish more people did, but hey.
I compared religion stripped of "dogma" down to its roots, god created everything and all the allowances that states.
And science stripped down to 3 laws of thermodynamics with its allowances.
I sided with creation within its own context of parameters because it does not have to break its own rules to justify itself as science has with the big bang theory.
JonOccamBluecollar 2 years ago
hahaha
funincluded 2 years ago
Science has broken it's own rules with the big bang theory?
No it hasn't.
We just don't fully understand the big bang event yet. But we are coming ever closer with modern string theory. Read work by Brian Green or Michio Kaku. Black holes are also places where science appears to break down. Would you describe black holes as floating 'miracles'? ...or just things which we do not yet fully understand?
thevividhaze 2 years ago
It's a fairly simple answer.
Logic does not claim to know anything to be true or not. All logic can do is tell us that an argument is valid, or invalid. This is to say that if the premise(s) are true the conclusion MUST be true. However, the argument is still valid if the premise(s) are false and the conclusion is true.
All arguments ultimately stem from "implication" which is usually used as a "horse shoe" in symbolic form;be it in propositional logic, or prepositional logic.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
I hope that helps. However, when studying Logic, it is important not to think in terms of right or wrong. Instead, valid or invalid.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
In addition it seems that you think it impossible to "prove" logic. Which isn't ENTIRELY true unless you are trying to use logic to find truth instead of validity.
"You can't prove logic as you correctly point out." We CAN prove logic to be valid, and doing so within it's own rules would NOT be circular. But to say that Logic is true WOULD, rather than valid, WOULD be circular. I hope that clears some things up a bit.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Something is valid as long as no contradictions are possible. However, it does not prove that something is true. (or existential as you acknowledge the problem as)
The problem which you are really asking is a problem which plagues modern philosophy and hasn't (atleast to my knowledge) been answered in respect to modern philosophy.
In short, we can PROVE logic to be VALID but we CANNOT PROVE logic to be TRUE.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Yes i just thought it was an interesting point. we can accept that it could be correct but we cannot prove it is correct. strange
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
It's very fun to think about certainly. I'm looking forward to my epistemology class next semester after studying logic for two semesters.
To be honest, It's fascinating how much philosophy can really be deduced from studying Logic. It is certainly a field of study that deserves much more attention than it currently receives in elementary and high school education. It could even use more attention at institutions of higher education as well.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
I've used logic to deduce lots of things. It has always worked. It has never failed me.
Actually it's better than that. If you think about what logic is, logic is tautological. It is true by definition. Here's an example, a basic syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates was mortal.
The conclusion follows directly from the meaning of the statements. All logic and mathematics is like that. You don't need to prove it.
AThagoras 2 years ago
What your saying is logic is true by definition
things that are true by definition dont need to be proven
logic does not need to be proven
That is a logical process. and so we are using circular reasoning to prove logic.. you see what i mean. you just used logic to prove logic,
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
My comment seems to have disappeared. Here it is again:
Consider the inference rule corresponding to my example:
Major premise: All X are Y.
Minor premise: A is an X.
Conclusion: A is a Y.
The statements "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is mortal" are statements about observable reality. The logical inference rule defines what we mean by the generalization "All men are mortal".
Logical inference rules are formal definitions of what logical statements mean.
AThagoras 2 years ago
Still using logic to prove logic?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
No. I'm not trying to prove logic, I'm trying to explain to you what (formal) logic is. Logic is just a way of being precise about what we mean when we make statements. You can't prove logic as you correctly point out.
Actually you can prove that first order predicate calculus is consistent and complete, but the proof uses first order predicate calculus, so you at least have to assume that it is consistent. As you correctly point out, there is an obvious problem with this.
AThagoras 2 years ago
Yeah i agree. just a strange thought.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
It's not really a problem when you understand what logic is. When I make the statement "All men are mortal" I mean that I expect that whenever the statement "X is a man" is true, the statement "X is mortal" is also true. I don't need to prove this because this is just what I mean when I say "All men are mortal". It's an assumption, so no proof is required. All logical inference rules are the same. They can all be interpreted as defining what we mean when we make particular statements.
AThagoras 2 years ago
Yeah but i think we have to remember logic is just another faith to an extent
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Logic only 'exists' after its facts are proven true...
No Facts - No logic
Therefore , for you to call it Logic it must be true, absolutely, outside of your understanding.
MilesB1975 2 years ago
lol i love definition. but you know what we mean. we can only prove its laws with itself..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
You don't have faith in Logic, because you have evidence that Logic works, ergo No faith required.
Is there anything you would be better off just believing than knowing?
MilesB1975 2 years ago
No but the fact that evidence proves logic is a logical step. and so you are using logic to prove logic. like using the bible to prove god its wrong?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I see, well think of it this way...
erm aah umm err?
(Disappears into black hole)
MilesB1975 2 years ago
I know its fucking horrible isn't it. its pissing me off.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Have a look for Hilary Putnam - Quantum Logic on the net, it won't answer anything , but it will keep you busy for a few millenia!
Great videos by the way, good to see someone applying Phaedrus' Knife to their own grey matter!
MilesB1975 2 years ago
cheers man.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
In terms of science, logical thinking is just a way of taking on information and then reasoning with it to see what it more likely to be true and what is less likely to be true. It is not about discovering "absolute truth". If you think that you can't prove logic at all that's fine, but next time you turn the lights off in your room please assume everything in that room has dissapeared. You're right, it just works. We can prove something we call 'logic' just by using it, even if it's wrong.
codfishproductions 3 years ago
u really have a point!!!
blackittie 3 years ago
i care tooo i care toooo :P
Bigmussie1 3 years ago
lazy? or nihilistic?
TheTheifInYourHead 3 years ago