The Pitfalls of Logic

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Logic is the interpretation of the laws of Nature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have a disconnect right at the outset because logic has nothing to do with the laws of nature. Logic can be applied to nature, just as it can be applied to any subject of thought, including these messages. But the definition of "logic" is:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In philosophy -- the theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning.

In common parlance -- sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So the purpose of logic is to narrow the field of all ideas to those ideas that are possible or have counterparts in reality. For example, consider the syllogism:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Humans are mortal.
Greeks are human.
Therefore, Greeks are mortal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This follows the rules of logic, so the conclusion, which cannot be learned from either premise separately, must be as true as the premises. However, consider the faulty syllogism:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Humans have ten fingers.
Jerry is human.
Therefore, Jerry has ten fingers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This also follows the rules of logic, but may be false because one of its premises is false. (Not all humans have ten fingers.) Or consider this one:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Apes are primates.
Humans are primates.
Therefore, humans are apes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This has two valid premises, but violates the rules of reasoning. Logic may fail in only two ways: false premise or violation of rules for reasoning.

Anyone who argues against logic (as here defined) is arguing to replace rationality with irrationality, or to credit whim or emotion over reasoning. I presume from your unusual definition of "logic" that was not your intention.

So what you need to do instead is to identify the false premise or violation of the rules of reasoning for any conclusion drawn using logic that is not to your liking.

The corollary is that, if you cannot identify a specific fault in a logical syllogism, you must accept the conclusion or you <i>will</i> be accpeting a whim or emotion-based idea over a rational one. Many people make that choice every day. But such people do not make good scientists. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Logic is the interpretation of the laws of Nature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have a disconnect right at the outset because logic has nothing to do with the laws of nature. Logic can be applied to nature, just as it can be applied to any subject of thought, including these messages. But the definition of "logic" is (snip) -- the theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning.

In common parlance -- sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim. So the purpose of logic is to narrow the field of all ideas to those ideas that are possible or have counterparts in reality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Disconnect, indeed.

There is no such thing as "that which has nothing to do with the laws of nature". Give me an example of something - anything - which is not within those laws. Even error is within its realm.

The nature of logic is that of an equation - the basic encoding of information and simultaneously solving for all known variables. Valid logic generates conclusions which fit all of the parameters of our observations.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Anyone who argues against logic (as here defined) is arguing to replace rationality with irrationality, or to credit whim or emotion over reasoning. I presume from your unusual definition of "logic" that was not your intention.

So what you need to do instead is to identify the false premise or violation of the rules of reasoning for any conclusion drawn using logic that is not to your liking.

The corollary is that, if you cannot identify a specific fault in a logical syllogism, you must accept the conclusion or you <i>will</i> be accepting a whim or emotion-based idea over a rational one. Many people make that choice every day. But such people do not make good scientists. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My point was that logic, itself, is imperfect and has limits. There are realities within the Universe which are beyond the scope of logic - not contrary to logic, but just not within its realm because logic requires definition and realities such as infinity are NOT defined. There is a finite distance between every two points in the Universe. Many mistakenly assume that if this is the case, then the furthest point must be within a finite distance. But there IS no furthest point. Just the act of defining two points sways the scope of your consideration from the infinite back to the finite. The mind (and the logic derived therefrom) cannot deal with infinity - or anything undefined.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Logic is the interpretation of the laws of Nature. The process of logic evaluates reality within the parameters of three basic criteria - quality, quantity and dimension (relative position and configuration). By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive knowledge which can be applied to familiar circumstances to predict the outcomes of those processes within those circumstances. When valid logic is used to simultaneously consider all known variables, it generates conclusions which fit all of the parameters of our observations.

---

however the results of experiments which can and does challenge our "logic". which leads to the conclusion that observations do not always lead to the truth.

---

Logic is; however, only a derivative - a derivative of reality. As in calculus, when you integrate a derivative or 'differential' equation an instance of definition is lost and the result always includes an arbitrary constant - an unknown factor without which the original values cannot be determined.

---

which is matter of details which of course then leads to the degree of complexity and whether we are willing.

---

Logic is a vital tool in understanding the nature of existence, but it is imperfect. It requires definition. Concepts such as infinity are undefined and beyond the realm of reason, and when logic is used to solve the riddles of reality, it invariably leaves behind an unknown arbitrary constant.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

actually Reason is the vital tool, then comes logic.

of course logic has definition, otherwise logic its self could not be defined. language evolves.

infinity is defined as that which is the opposite of nothing.(nothing being defined as having no space-movement(change)or dimension)

a constant can be brought along.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My point was that logic, itself, is imperfect and has limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

of course this does not surprise me.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are realities within the Universe which are beyond the scope of logic - not contrary to logic, but just not within its realm because logic requires definition and realities such as infinity are NOT defined<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.

of course there is knowledge(realities) beyond a particular reason and logic and therefore logic is not stagnant. they evolve, they always have.

---

I don't agree with anybody here. For me ...

The Laws of Nature constitute a subset of Logic. Thus, if one starts with nothing ... out comes the universe ... logically ... as a unique expression of logic.

Tom sees the two as separate things with nature having to obey logic but not dependent on it for its own generation. It just "is".

Others may see logic as being generated by the laws of nature, i.e. as we observe and generalize from it.

Is the horse pulling the cart? Is the cart pushing the horse? Is the cart before the horse ... and ... hmmmm, going in the opposite direction like MJ's moonwalk? What is it? Is one view necessarily right? Are all correct somehow? Obviously, only I can be right ... because ... ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />I don't agree with anybody here. For me ...

The Laws of Nature constitute a subset of Logic. Thus, if one starts with nothing ... out comes the universe ... logically ... as a unique expression of logic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

and to me this above statement is based on the premise that "anything is possible" anything is not possible and that is why REASON is important. for instance suppose i say to a person, heres a baseball bat now i want you to stand at the base of the CN Tower and knock it down. now obviously this person cannot do so the bat would shatter long before he even begun to put a dent in the Tower. it is an impossible task.

therefore in asmuch as there can be "unique expressions of logic" that does not make them a real possibility.