Greg Koukl - Logic a Human Invention?

Taken from our blog, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question "Is logic a human invention?" For more information, visit http://www.str.org.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• greg
• koukl
• str
• stand
• reason
• logic
• philosophy
• christianity
• apologetics

[flizzleFlopper]

...and if you say that it's a language that she's learned just as she's learned english, I say that's VERY iffy because we employ language everyday, but don't always employ GOOD logic...then why would an adult employ the same tactic if he's dealing with someone from another culture, who even speaks a different language?

[flizzleFlopper]

Here's a simple illustration...when my kids are playing and my 3 year old lets my 17 month old play with a toy that belongs to her, when the roles are reversed the next day (and my 3 year old wants one of my 17 month old's toys), why does my 3 year old say, "hey I let you play with my toy yesterday!" instead of saying something else. She's NEVER taken a course in logic...that I know of...but why would she say that? AND expect that someone else would actually see it as something worth saying?

[flizzleFlopper]

@PostITnoteGUY Logic is a language? The irony is that logic is the only way you can PROVE your statement.

I can declare that a pencil is a language, but only a fool would believe that out of hand. A reasonable person would insist on a logical argument.

The only reason humans even have language is because of logic...this is why logic can't be a language...language itself is based on logic.

Even mathematical arguments are based on logic...and mathematics is discovered not created.

[shizfergus27]

@PostITnoteGUY First of all, my argument WAS that we can't learn the rules of logic and they must be innate so your point is irrelevant. Second, we learn many things that are descriptions of reality; the second law of thermodynamics for example and many scientific facts.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

People WERE taught the law of non-contradiction. They were taught this while acquiring language as children!

With both the structure of language and the laws of logic, I think you commit the error, ubiquitous to YouTube apologists, of examining structures that are so natural to human beings as to seem (and in practice be) undeniable, and inferring that they must be foundational features of reality rather than human constructs.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Communication doesn't function according to subjects and verbs because of "how reality is structured", but rather because of how human brains are structured. It's entirely possible that some truly strange form of intelligent life might evolve on another planet that communicates in some other fashion. Of course, in order for us to decipher their communications, if we ever can, we'll have to translate them into subjects and verbs, or it won't be meaningful TO US.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

For example, you can make it so that "A is not equal to A" is true, but what you've done is change the meaning of "equal"! But then when considering further, you must consistently keep this new meaning (and synonymous meanings like "identical" and "the same"), when examining the consequences. For example, change "equal" to mean what we currently mean by "not equal", and "A is not equal to A" is true. When you then ask "Well then, what does A equal?", the answer is "Anything except A".

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

You pose a good question when you ask "if they're inventions, then what would it look like to change them?". But once you realize that the logic "holds" because of the semantics of its terms, the answer is obvious. You can change the meanings around as you like, but you must lock in the meanings consistently to avoid equivocation. It's not legitimate to jump back and forth between old and new meanings to produce a problem or contradiction.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Now the laws of logic ARE of course human constructs - their statement and validity are a consequent on human language. (That doesn't make them dismissable as arbitrary.) "A equals A" holds not because of any metaphysical property of reality, but rather because of what the word "equals" means! Semantics is a human construct, but once established (!), words means what they mean.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You began saying "it's not unusual". In my experience, only twice in my life can I recall encountering this attack against logic and reason as being "mere" human constructs (Nietzsche being one). Quite silly and self-defeating stuff, I agree with you there. But as to the frequency that it's argued - in my experience it's amazingly rare. I've heard vastly more people argue that the mass murders by 20th century communist tyrannies were morally justified, though that also is extremely rare.