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. ;)