Logic as Arbiter of Truth

smoothmoniker · 05-01-2003, 10:24 AM

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.

05-01-2003, 10:30 AM

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

Cam · 05-01-2003, 10:47 AM

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

juju · 05-01-2003, 11:31 AM

Are we assuming we know all the appropriate facts?

smoothmoniker · 05-01-2003, 02:20 PM

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.

elSicomoro · 05-01-2003, 03:35 PM

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

Whit · 05-01-2003, 05:48 PM

     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.

Whit · 05-01-2003, 06:07 PM

     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.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-01-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is.

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

elSicomoro · 05-01-2003, 07:13 PM

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

xoxoxoBruce · 05-01-2003, 07:18 PM

Hey them's fightin' words.

Whit · 05-01-2003, 07:22 PM

     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.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-01-2003, 07:24 PM

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

Whit · 05-01-2003, 07:24 PM

     Oops, instead of examples I should have said tests.

elSicomoro · 05-01-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hey them's fightin' words.

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

05-01-2003, 10:24 AM	#1
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	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.

05-01-2003, 10:47 AM	#3
Cam dripping with ignorance Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Grand Forks ND Posts: 642	I tried but my head started to hurt, maybe later in the day __________________ After the seventh beer I generally try and stay away from the keyboard, I apologize for what happens when I fail.

05-01-2003, 05:48 PM	#7
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

05-01-2003, 06:07 PM	#8
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

05-01-2003, 07:18 PM	#11
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Hey them's fightin' words. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-01-2003, 10:30 AM	#2
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I think I agree with you, but I am going to try anyway. Give me a few hours to come up with something bogus.

05-01-2003, 11:31 AM	#4
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Are we assuming we know all the appropriate facts?

05-01-2003, 02:20 PM	#5
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	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.

05-01-2003, 03:35 PM	#6
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	The world doesn't seem to work well on logic these days...emotion rules.

05-01-2003, 07:13 PM	#10
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Now you sound like Radar and his 16th amendment spiel.

05-01-2003, 07:22 PM	#12
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	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. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

05-01-2003, 07:24 PM	#13
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Ok, I follow you. I've got an IQ approaching double digits, you know. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)