Logic as Arbiter of Truth
 

Something has been sticking in my craw for the last few months, and I wanted to work it out.

In various other threads, the idea has been presented that you could make a logical case for anything, the implication being that a sound logical argument was not significant in determining something as true or false. The idea is sort of accepted as a given.

I don't think it should be. Logic is still the best arbiter of truth that we have. I don't think you can construct a sound logical argument in support of a determinable false conclusion without equivocating on terms.

Anyone care to try? State a determinable false conclusion, simple is better, and construct a sound logical argument that supports it.

I think I agree with you, but I am going to try anyway. Give me a few hours to come up with something bogus.

I tried but my head started to hurt, maybe later in the day

Are we assuming we know all the appropriate facts?

yeah, as an exercise in logical constructs, go ahead and stipulate any "facts not in evidence".

You'll probably have to define your own closed system for this to make any kind of operable sense.

The world doesn't seem to work well on logic these days...emotion rules.

     This was, more or less, an example of the misuse of logic. Obviously this arguement is not reasonable, but the question was of logic. So, here ya go. The following is taken from 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance':

So I go on. "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."

"Of course."

"So when did this law start? Has it always existed?"

John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at.

"What I'm driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed."

"Sure."

"Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still existed?"

Now John seems not so sure.

"If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it existed."

John says, "I guess I'd have to think about it."

"Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense.

     You see, using pure logic untempered by reason or 'common sense' you can make all kinds of odd conclusions. I like that particular example, that's why I posted it. Obviously though, this is a misuse of logic.
     I prefer reason, more than logic. The irony of that is one of the many definitions of reason is "sound judgement; good sense." Heh, 'sound' and 'good' are obviously less exacting than logical though.

Wait a minute. The Law of Gravity passed no such tests. That make this statement untrue. Therefore it is not logical untempered or otherwise.:confused:

Now you sound like Radar and his 16th amendment spiel.

Hey them's fightin' words.:angry:

     It goes into more detail in the book. I just cut out a little bit. It does say, no mass, no energy, not in anyones head though. I think this is and example of why it doesn't exist.

Ok, I follow you. I've got an IQ approaching double digits, you know.;)

     Oops, instead of examples I should have said tests.

Quit making crackheaded remarks, and we'll have no problems. ;)

     "You could also look up the specifics of the 'Magic Bullet Theory'." he says, pretending this thread was still on track.

Whit:

I think I should read that book. I'd like to hear the rest of the context for the argument.

Based on my admittedly brief reading of your redaction, it seems to fall under the equivocation of terms fallacy. It assumes that the criteria for "existing" are identical in every case. While the meaning is the same, the establishment of the case is different. Any universal, such as "redness" or "law of gravity" exists in a different sense than "that chair" or "my arm" exists.

An Operable Universal, one that operates on concrete instances of other entities, still "exists" even when it lacks the concrete material to operate upon.

In a similar vein, you might ask, "Does the law of gravity exist in a vacuum?" Surely it does, it simply lacks the material upon which to operate and demonstrate its existence.

-sm

     The book is okay, I don't really suggest it. It really drags at parts. Pick it up at the library, or look it up online. (Yeah, it's there, you people don't think I'd type all that in do you?) It directs you towards some interesting sources though. Also, if you can work through the slow stuff the guy has some interesting opinions. Plus, he puts them into a real world context, which I like.
     I still hate Kant...

yeah, you have to hate Kant ... it's one of the prerequisites for modern thought. Everything written in the field since Critique of Pure Reason has been written because of the author's hatred of Kant.

That aside, I don't think the "law of gravity is nonexistent" argument is logically sound. It relies on equivocation of terms within different circumstances. It supplies criteria for evaluating the existence of concrete instances of a thing, and tries to apply them against a Universal property.

-sm

     Oh sure, strip this away why don't you?
;)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a number of interesting aspects to it.

I've read it several times, and each time have brought something different away from it. (can't for the life of me remember what each of those things were, of course) ;)

It was originally recommended to me by a friend who was SO into the book that he bought copies of it whenever he found it for cheap (25 cent copies at the bookswap were not unusual finds for a while) and would hand it out to people he felt needed to be enlightened.

We would sit and have long discussions about Phaedrus and the notion of "quality" ....

That was back in college, which is where most folks find ZatAoMM for the first time.

I reread it a couple years back when a big anniversary edition was published ...

Time and experience drastically changes perception.

Here's my take on it now.

Phaedrus was CRAZY. Off the deep end mad as a hatter crazy. (He's not as, but continuing to be crazy in Lila)

     Well, there is such thing as digging to deep. I think Phaedrus was unaware of this. As human's we have inherant limitations. We simply can't know everything. I think that's why faith is so attractive. It allows one to assume knowledge without backing it up with definate proof.
     As far as the gravity thing goes, yeah, it does go too far. As I said, a misuse of logic. It does present a logical arguement. The fact that you can make a logical arguement to disprove it doesn't change anything. You didn't ask for an irrefutable example. Just an example. For that matter, I'm somewhat reminded of Juju's 'Cult-Mindset' thread. As long as you limit your questions it's easy to get "Logical" answers.

Doesn't the fact that it misuses the term "exist" make it illogical?

Anyway, it's all well and good to have a closed system, but in the real wold we don't always know all the facts. Does unknown information that would affect an outcome make an argument illogical?

     I think that the arguement is fine as long as you don't apply any more reason than it gives. I mean that if you take you arguement and terms as he means them then the idea that there wasn't gravity before Newton makes logical sense. It's just that the smallest bit of common sense throws that idea out the window immediately. It's a silly idea that we would never take seriously. Yet, in context his arguement does follow logic. It just ignores many other factors. Like that we know we had gravity before Newton.      Yes. That's why so many scientific theories, even ones that have been treated as fact for years, get disproven. Newtons own theory is a good example. What passes every concievable test today may not do so tomorrow.

Juju and Whit, I think you're kind of stumbling into the crux of what I was working through. In the real world, there are two parts to establishing a rational argument. The first is the reliability of data from which to work, and the second is the integrity of the logical construct within which you frame the data.

My point was, you may use bad data and prove a wrong conclusion, but the structure of a sound logical argument does not in itself yield wrong conclusions. The reason for defining a closed system is to make sure that you use only "good" data (self defined terms and ideas).

The importance is this, I think. Instead of throwing up hands and saying "you can make a logical argument for anything", you have to disect your opponents argument by either questioning his data, or demonstrating the fallacy of his logic. If the data is good, and the logical argument is sound, then the argument stands

sorry, its late, I'm a Scotch or three to the good, and I'm being long winded.

-sm

Fer me, maybe what it boils down to is: logic and reason are the good tools we have to work stuff out, but we completely lack the understanding of so much that we usually mess it up even when we think we've gotten it right.

Also, we have built-in tendencies to assign meaning to stuff even when there is none, and to find patterns where there are none. This confuses us.

And our logic skills are limited so much, and our egos so strong, that we often "lose faith" in logic when it fails to get us to where we want to be.

If you take the the information available and apply logic, the result is an opinion which may or may not be fact. As the available information changes the opinion may change accordingly, unless you're Radar.;)

     Damn UT, I was working a response last night when I gave it up due to falling asleep. I said something very similar in about ten times as many words...
     There comes a point when it's just overanalyzing anyway. It's tough to know when that point is. End of the day though, effect means more than defining the best possible parameters. For example, in my younger days I played a lot of Street Fighter II. This guy with an IQ well over 160 had studied it and read all kinds of things about the fine details of the game. He used it to tell me why stuff couldn't happen, after it did. "Blanka's standing strong punch is faster than Guile's low forward kick! There's no way you can hit me first!" He'd say it with passion and certainty too. I'd take a long drink of my coke, look him in the eye and say, "Really? That's funny, I can do it again if you like." His data came from the programmers. It was good. It was also a waste of time. For all his info I was just a better player.
     When you hit this point using "logic" just becomes an exercise in mental masturbation.

Maybe things get so complicated so quickly that it really challenges the limits of the brain, because there are so many different variables.

When we first went looking for a house to buy, I quickly got overwhelmed and confused. I went about it the wrong way, mentally. I would try to work out the worth of various things, trying to turn it into a big equation. "It has a crack in this wall that we have to fix, that's worth about $3000... we'll need three major appliances... the commute is 10 minutes shorter but it has no view..." I thought if I could create that equation, I could simplify the house process somehow.

Tried to keep all the things in mind that affected the choice, tried to figure a value of them. But I only wound up dizzy. We looked at 19 different places and pretty soon I couldn't remember all the factors I was trying to keep in my head.

The better way would have been to rate a few factors from 1 to 10 -- real-world factors like cost, condition, location, etc. and then go intuitive: do I want to live here? What would it probably be like, every day? Could I live like that?

     What??? You would apply common sense to a complicated decision making process?!? That's a good way to... actually... that's a good way.

UT, it probably would have worked if you had actually written it all down as you went along. Did you really just try to keep it all in your head?

Yes. But even writing it down isn't good enough, because there are more important variables than you can even think of that you'll never write down.

It seems like he was neglecting external factors -- eg; apparently you were simply a better player than him.

     Well, yes, he was. When that was suggested he argued that he was breaking it down to specific movements on the game, not the overall match.
     He was working off a specific plan and reflex. I was just working off reflex. I didn't need to know all the stats, I learned through cause and effect. I couldn't logicaly explain why I won. I didn't see that it was necessary. He could explain, in great detail, every movement and the reason for it. All that did for him was cost a lot of quarters. This being said, he was pretty damn good at the game. I was just better.
     My point was linked to what UT said earlier.      I've always thought the best response to these people that want to question how we know we exist is to smack them in the head. Existence will become apparent to them quickly when they are in pain, and fear more of it. It's silly bullshit. As I said, mental masterbation.
     At some point you have to work with the info you have, and to hell with what you don't know. Logic must be tempered with reason or it can be in the way as much as it can help. And reason is relative, so in everday life you've got a lot of balls in the air. Tough. Do the best you can with what you have, hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Even if logic is the best tool available for systematizing and correlating truth, it doesn't make it appropriate to every situation. Like buying a house ... there are visceral factors there that it would be absurd to try to anaylize. Or playing Street Fighter, where the sheer amount of data that has to corraborated makes the task impossible.

The value of the tool is the realm of the ideal, where the discussion lives in a defined system. You can set about assuming the "if" part of the statment, prove the "then" part. After that, the task becomes proving that the "if" part is valid in the real world.

My point in all of this is to avoid throwing away the tools. Thinking specifically of "he who is not named" in the politics section. Instead of fighting the duel of data, throwing in fact after fact, it would seem useful to grant the data, but force him to argue the logical structure that makes the data mean what he says it does.

This would hold true in a lot of cases. The data is not always the important thing. The rationality of the case built on the data is often much weaker than the collection of facts.

-sm

     Well, it sounds like most of us are in agreement here, even if we all phrase it differently. Except maybe Juju, the jury's still out on him. Most of us seem to think logic is important, but falls short of being a final arbiter of truth, or an arbiter of THE truth.
     Like I said earlier, logic must be tempered by reason.

What the.. Jury still out?! Why I oughta..

I seem to remember saying something like this:

     LOL, all right, I apologize. I was still thinking about you suggesting UT write what would have to be an insanely long list down instead of keeping it in his head. Or just making a judgment call. I take it back. My mistake.

. . . and this concludes our broadcast day.

Tune in tomorrow for such threads as:

"Is that my nickel?"
"Calculating the point spread for the Democratic primaries"
"Kant vs. Carrot Top: the moral imperative for the death penalty"

and

"Nominating Whit, Bruce, Juju, and UT for the new Survivor:Pittsburgh"

     As long as I keep top billing, I'm in!