Logic - Part 1 (logic and science)

[Terncote]

Empiricism in science is NOT just the experience of a single observer. It combines direct observation with data from instruments and. It is the collective and agreed upon "experience" of many individuals, examined, tested, retested and constantly challenged.

Having an opinion based on your own experience does not make you an empiricist. It is clear from your collected works on YouTube that you have mistaken one for the other.

[WaywardStarWisdom]

simple put logic is a mental leep of faith based on your observed experiance as religion is a leep of faith based on what you are told is the truth! Logic is an ongoing search for truth based on what one has experianced, not to be confused with science which is a field of study not a thought proccess. Religion is the opposit of Logic one is a blind obediance to faith the other is an experiance based faith! Science is a field of study you can approach either way!

[tinkyshearer]

The best detectives are the initutive ones not the logical ones. They just know. Columbo for instant then work backwards to solve the crime.

[tinkyshearer]

I'm right brain dominant and I intuitively know the right answers and have to work back to find the question.

[theboombody]

At least this video leaves the idea open that logic might be flawed. No one ever thinks that. I do though.

[mieery]

your a dumb chubby fuck. your supposed to do constructive things with logic.not talk about it on youtube.or learn it get a degree and have credentials and teach it for free to people.your just a fat loser.

[TommyWolaver]

He's a bloat demon

[TommyWolaver]

You sickening toad!

[TommyWolaver]

You are all crazy and don't understand that this man's demon belief contradict everything you know because he wants you all to die. He is a demon, he is satan, I know.

Don't listen to him he is trying to convert you to satan.

[wrdeboise]

Something's, albeit not many, can be deduced a priori. Math can generally work this way. Logical concepts, like numbers, seem to be "known" a priori. You don't even need to know anything about the formalism, just their representation. For instance, even babies can tell the difference between one of something and two of that something. This is the basic framework from which logic is built.

[TommyWolaver]

@wrdeboise

I think that this man looks like a tired blob that may have originated from a human form. I don't know that, but is logic is that I am right, you don't know say that its fact that you're wrong and logic and numbers are not brain.

HormaiusMora

[MaksimLevinskyMusic]

I likely this video.

It's clearly explained.

[MaksimLevinskyMusic]

MIKE? Mike Who?

I hope this guy has more videos other than this series...he's REALLY GOOD!

I'm VERY impressed by his video series.

I shard them with other people,too...(:

[exfalsoquodlibet]

Logic only answers questions of the form "Does A imply B?", where A and B can be any propositions that can be assigned a truth value.

First you observe. Then you make an abstract model of your observations, by translating them into formal propositions. Then you can apply logic to these propositions and arrive at new propositions, which are definitely true in your abstract model, but not necessarily in the "real" world, because it might be that you have missed some observations :)

[TommyWolaver]

@exfalsoquodlibet

Yes, but when the A and B are implied through electronegativity and are meta fused so that their relations can be subtracted and quantum properties may defy the fact that your nervous system is not functioning properly. I can conclude this. A subjective observation in space tubes does not reject that your previously stated propositions everything you say and know is wrong.

HormaiusMora

[v1s10naryman]

Ultimately, omniscience would be the prerequisite of knowing the whole truth. Since every individual I've ever met or seen seems to be a long way off from that demanding qualification... it would seem more fitting to argue about how any present truth we have can be applied and what moral framework we should be applying it in. At the end of the day what kind of logic do we want in the world? The survival of the fittest logic? A communial altruistic logic? both hold truths, but which is harmonius?

[TommyWolaver]

@v1s10naryman

Am can agree that not did not logic A and B was not and you're wrong you can't know this was you can't know its because you're truth logic altruistic you don't prove this you don't know that you're wrong why do you say this logic is not you being wrong that's not what it means you're wrong though.

[v1s10naryman]

@TommyWolaver

Honestly... It is very hard to understand what you're talking about since your English grammar is... strange... but a fact remains that when I can calculate enough facets of any given entity to the point that I can completely predict its behaviour within a certain time frame in any given environment... then I could take it that I know about that entity. The reality of the predictability of cause and effect acts an accurate measure and proof of "knowing".

[TommyWolaver]

@v1s10naryman

Yes, I am correct. Prediction is a fictitious supernatural term that can be defined as: a scientifically impossible human lie of brain function. To futher prove my point I must say that this man you are worshiping is a lethargic bag-like creature and his logic is not to be trusted.

[TommyWolaver]

@v1s10naryman

As well as the fact that you're wrong and prediction is supernatural, I may also conclude that this man is a satanic nazi, based on the evidence presented withing the video, with his appearance being a horrible bag.

[v1s10naryman]

Truth as a concept is a calculation of all possible perspectives on the actual nature of any given thing. All perspectives, whether derived from a logical formation of thought based on correct premises or information stored through an act of percieving (much of which in our day uses machinery to read beyond the limitations of our senses) as part of continued observation, are not everything in of themselves nor give a complete picture. Truth is in all accurate data, but the data is not the truth.

[trutta567]

Please do not confuse logic with science or common sense. All logic purports to do is to preserve truth. It tells you nothing new about the world, it's claim is only that if the premises are true, then if you use logical reasoning then the conlusion must be true.

It says nothing about the truth or falsity of the premises.

[dlucas90]

This is sooooooo good. Well worth watching all the way through to part three. His monotone style seems boring at first, but given the subject matter, it's perfect.

[Chimeratopher]

Has Mike done any other vids? Please let me know - Thanks

[DivisionbyZer0]

you might enjoy Bentley's paper "The Human Skin"

[weakperception]

You are removing logic from observation.

Logic governs observations, that's how we know when we have observed "enough" to form a conclusion.

I guess what I am saying, is logic is synonomous with correct.

Logic IS everything. All beliefs that are correct beliefs employ logic. Discarding logic is like saying, "I dont care if I am correct."

Anyone who says logic isnt everything, is a person who obviously had to reject logical thought in order to believe something that makes them feel good.

[psychetruth]

I think weakperception is a good name for you.

I do not need logic to observe that a wall is painted blue. I look at it and perceive blue. If I were trying to guess what color the wall was in a room I had not been in, then I would attempt to use logical to come up with the most likely answer.

[TheSatanicView]

@psychetruth The logic of calling that wall blue is: This wall is painted the same color that I have been told is blue, therefore it is blue. You don't just know the wall is blue moron. I just want you to know that if you ever feel like killing yourself, go ahead. The world has plenty of idiots we need to get rid of.

[psychetruth]

If logical were everything, people wouldn't need to scientific method. Science would be purely rationalism and people wouldn't try to validate their theories (concluded from logic) through empirical experimentation (concluded through observation).

The scientific method places a higher value of empirical observation than it does on rationalized thought.

[RebelRay]

"Logic IS everything."

If so, using logic, please prove that "Logic IS everything".

[Ph1005]

Logic is not everything because some things are not (or not completly) logic (some opinions for example). But everything has a part of logic in it. I think we should say "Everything is logical (at least in a way)"

[weakperception]

Emotions are not a way to know truth, they are only a way to feel truths.

I could be afraid of a ghost, but that doesnt mean ghost exist.

[psychetruth]

1) I didn't say emotions were a way to know truth. I said they were a way to know something.

2) being a afraid of ghost doesn't make ghost real but it does allow you to know that you are afraid of ghosts which could be true.

[Scientisticsoviet]

...then you can allow for the possibility of your initial observation ( I see 1 apple) of being in reality false. In this scenario there might be more or less then 1.

[Scientisticsoviet]

Also, the apple you see isn't necessarily one in reality (It could be two). But the thing is, you see 1. The question is how many do you SEE. Just making that clear. And you work with that mathematical hypothesis, making predictions. If ever you get results that do not coordinate with reality, making sure you do not make any errors along the way (in calculation I mean) then (See next post... maximum word count)

[Scientisticsoviet]

Just wondering if you are a pure empiricist or also a partial rationalist? Since math itself is very important to understanding, I would think so... Oh, and , just to clarify, math itself is a tool that we invented and, like any tool, is utilitarian at it's core... meaning that it is deeply grounded within reality. Ex: You see an apple. How many do you see? one. There it is. The fundamental statement of mathematics... An object or quantity is itself. The apple you see is proof.

[MENCADO]

Don't you think that people feel good or feel bad about something based on some, possibly unconscious but nevertheless logical, reasoning? It seems to me that feelings do have a rational basis. Granted it is a very complex and uniquely personal basis, but it is a rational basis, nonetheless. A person's not being conscious of, not understanding, or not knowing how to explain, the influences behind their own thoughts and feelings does not mean that those influences are actually non-existent.

[GodForum]

Can we say that mathematics is pure logic ?

[psychetruth]

Yea I think you could say that actually.

Keep in mind that math is symbols only and hopefully represents something in the real universe.

So math isn't the phenomenon itself but only a representation of phenomena.

[GodForum]

So would you say that if God exists ... he would have chosen an alpha-numeric language in order to communicate to man since mathematics is important to logic ?

[psychetruth]

You have

Phenomena

Ideas (concepts)

Symbols

In the mind, an idea approximates a phenomenon.

Symbols are associated with the idea and phenomenon.

Symbol are arbitrary.

i.e. - All languages have a word (symbol) for a tree. The words (symbols) vary but the idea is basically constant and phenomena (the actual tree) is constant in the physical universe.

So alpha-numeric language is the invention of man and some languages are not alpha, and some cultures didn't have the idea of zero.

[psychetruth]

If you are attempting to make the argument that because the universe can be understood w/ intelligence, it's indicates that the universe was created by intelligence, then I think that's a valid philosophical argument.

[GodForum]

ok ... so to find the true God all one has to do is find the religion that claims a revelation from "God" recorded in an alpha numeric language. Agree ?

[psychetruth]

To me, finding God would mean having a personal relationship with God and experiencing God for oneself through prayer, meditation and religious experience.

Religious scripture gives the direction to look in order to experience God.

If you believe in God, God is not a symbol (words written in books or spoken), nor is God merely an idea in one mind. God would be a real existence.

Reading about a tractor or even having an idea about tractor is not the same thing as experiencing a tractor.

[GodForum]

Interesting, you love logic, you agreed that mathematics is a pure form of logic and then you choose to take leaps of faith and rely on mind games. Is this logical ? :)

[psychetruth]

I don't think you paid attention to message of this video. It was originally called "limitations of logic".

Read the video description.

This is part 1 as well. Part 3 discusses logic and religion.

To me "logic" is the mind game and direct experience is a senior method of learning things; i.e. you could think about what it's like to drive a car for a lifetime but would never really understand until you drove one.

My video "Debate & Boobs" gives my opinion of dialectic logic as well.

[carlosb1]

excuse me have you read books by Hans Reichenbach? hes my favorite scientific philosopher. if you havent you can check then out.

[composer390]

Whoa, wait a minute. Be careful with this:

"Logic uses past experiences to derive a conclusion.."

You're wrong in using the term logic here; you really mean induction. Using logic in this context is false because deduction does the exact opposite; when you deduce, you take certain broader truths to try and conclude a specific truth. When you induce, you take the specific examples from experience and try to make broader generalizations about the world.

[psychetruth]

Careful. I actually explained this. All logic has to proceed from an original observation.

You can make a deduction about a cat only because you have experience about a cat or someone told you about an idea of cat; in which case they have experienced a cat or have been told about a cat. Somewhere down the line, someone made some observation about a cat.

Somewhere down the line someone had an observation about a cat.

[psychetruth]

It's possible for people to create completely hypothetical existences and make deductions about them but then they are not really talking about reality are they?

So what would be the point.

Of course the more divorced from reality logic gets the less likely one will derive a correct conclusion.

The more grounded one's logic is in observation, the more likely the conclusions will reflect what is real.

[tribidemp]

Experimentation is used to prove or disprove your hypothesis, not theory.

[idiothek]

it seems to me there's an ambiguity lurking around here... possibly a conflation of different concepts. LOGIC(1) in a more broad sense (in when used in a way that's a bit anachronistic) is what's good in the way of thinking. logic (2) in a more narrow sense is a systematized form of getting necessary conclusions from given premises. this is a mathematical concept invented by Peirce and Frege.

[AcePilot101]

The most important words in any language is yes and no. It's the basic binary code of human communication. Of course, the Devil is in the detail and there are many shades of grey/gray..lol

[gtcstorm40]

Thanks, psychetruth!! You simplify a complex topic. A logical person knows its limitations.

[DrPhallus]

That was really good.

[Halo2isgay87]

well so far its a good video wheres part 2?

[psychetruth]

Click on my name, click on my videos and you will find it.

[8GreyCat8]

Interesting. I agree with you. Nice video *gives a 5 star* =]

[posholvglush]

tooo stretched...... (to long) can catch a meaning of his words, but he keeps repeating it...

[DogSneeze]

Logic is not just "putting ideas together" and "searching for truth" but simply the study of the principles and criteria of valid inferences and demonstrations. You conflate it with mere critical thinking or intellectual curiosity.

[psychetruth]

I don't actually disagree with you. To some degree this is a talk about general epistemology and empiricism. Although, I don't think "logic" has much do with demonstration; valid inferences certainly.

[DogSneeze]

There are several types of logic and in mathematical logic proofs are demonstrations that a statement is "necessarily" true (given certain axioms).

[psychetruth]

Yep, not talking about formal logic or symbolic logic. I'm talking what you average Joe means when he say's "that's logical" i.e. informal logic or butchered dialectics. I bet maybe 1 in 1000 people have any training in symbolic logic.

[psychetruth]

Also, even mathematical logic proof such as analytical geometry depend on a base assumption for the validity of the proof. I.E. You cannot prove the definition of a point.

[psychetruth]

I stated that if you the premise is incorrect the conclusion is incorrect, do you disagree with that? I also stated that science required empirical observation to validate the a logical conclusion before it can be considered to be true. Do you disagree with that? You are only arguing semantics.

[DogSneeze]

Informal logic; got it. You lost me on "you cannot prove the definition of a point."  What is a "definition of a point" that needs to be proven? This is oddly worded.

[psychetruth]

Analytical geometry uses a formal system of logic to prove things like what a triangle is or what circle is. In analytical geometry a "Line" is defined a series of consecutive "Points". All shapes are defined in terms or "points" and "Lines" but you are unable to come up with a formal proof for what a point is. It's the basic assumption of the whole subject.

[psychetruth]

Symbolic logic is a relatively new subject by the way. It has it best use in computer programming and database handling. Informal logic has it place in society (commonly called debate) it is used for by legislatures, lawyers, even salespeople but they are extremely informal about their informal logic. It has more to do w/ persuasion than truth but ultimately is based on Socrates' idea of dialectic logic.

[musicmathieu]

I think what you mean by "your average Joe type of logic" is common sense. I really don't know much about it, but I disagree that logic is that. Logic must be something more "logical". I think it means "an axiom or empirical observation that is relatively or directly connected to other". This way you can derive the strength of its use in relation to another. Logic is connected to a great web, the bigger the web, the stronger the logic.

[gklr]

I challenge that we can know anything via emotion. Rather I suggest that emotion is subjective and resolves belief, opinion, taste etc. The method of logic applied is subjective rather than emotional.

[psychetruth]

LOL, you obvious can't observe people very well. Most people make most of their decisions based on emotion. How does someone know what they like and don't like? How does some know who to sit next to at a party? How does someone know which movie to go watch? People make many decisions based on what they like or don't like without regards to logic or logical processes. After all, why do people do irrational things?

[gklr]

Those decisions are subjective. Every decision uses some type of logic, even if irrational logic. Personal preference is subjective, and by saying so I am reffering to the propositional type being used.

[psychetruth]

You may very well be falling into the trap that just about every person that proposed a psychological theory fell into as well. They assume that everyone works like they do. This isn't the case. Some people don't have a very good ability to observe things so they substitute thinking for observations. The ideas these people connect in their little minds seem more real to them than whats in front of their face. An extreme example is the mechanism in psychology we call delusional disorder.

[gklr]

There is no such thing as emotional knowledge, because there is no such thing as an emotional proposition. Propositions that express emotion are subjective everytime, and subjectivity is not knowledge.

[psychetruth]

LOL. Dude your fun. Now what the hell do you think the word "subjective" means? Logic most assuredly occurs only in the mind. For that matter all experience occurs in the mind as well.

[gklr]

Subjective statements are 1 of 5 propositional types that are all in the mind, and are belief as are myths and assumption. The other 2 propositional types are truths, and that includes what we know. We do not know our beliefs are true, and subjectiveness is a belief.

[gklr]

Most conclusions people arrive at are accomplished via inductive reasoning or assumption. This is a belief type but is not subjective, it is objective. This is how we resolve the sun will rise tommorow or this message will be read.