The same way you did.
Objective logic and Human perceptions.
See, differentiated.
U trollin bro? I’m obviously not referring to the concepts or definitions.
If you’re not referring to concepts or definitions, then what are you referring to?
You haven’t escaped the performative contradiction in any way whatsoever.
(These forums eating my posts is really starting to piss me off.)
Logic isn’t trusted. This isn’t news to Science, as the entire purpose of experimentation is to find out if the assumptions on which the logic is built are correct.
Irrational Numbers, the fact that light cannot collide with itself, the quantum erasure experiement, and the weak force/strong force all fly in the face of logic.
How so?
Saying that science can disprove logic is like saying science can find a four-sided triangle. Once you understand what logic is, you’ll see that it’s absolutely nonsensical and ridiculous to say that quantum mechanics can ‘disprove it’ or radically modify our conception of it.
Science can’t prove or disprove logic and mathematics. That is far outside its domain. It has to presuppose them to even get off the ground.
Put down the pop science books/Scientific American.
QFT
I smell some postmodernism. OK, I admit there are presuppositions people work with and that clean cut Logic and the inferenced logic and human minds can be and usually are two different things. So perhaps the initial author meant that our own human logic shouldn’t be trusted (as opposed to an abstract perfect logic).
I didn’t say science disproves logic. I’m saying science doesn’t trust logic because the outworkings of logic can result in incorrect results when the underlying assumptions are incorrect. (Which often happens.)
The entire purpose of experimentation is to ensure that the hypothesis (Even if it’s a perfectly logical hypothesis) is correct. That’s not an incidental effect of experimentation, that is, again, the entire purpose. It is not news to science that logic can’t be trusted.
I said that quantum mechanics “flies in the face of logic”, but I meant it flew in the face of logic before the underlying assumptions were adjusted.
Bad word choice on my part, but I think in context what I meant was clear, and accurate.
Interesting logic.
We have certain terms that we use in logic. “Outworkings” are known as “conclusions”. If someone has a false conclusion, then either their premises are flawed or their argument is invalid. That’s all. It’s not that we can’t trust logic, it’s that people are imperfect.
no, refuting logic only requires some empirical evidence, that would show something completely paradoxical in our universe, some phenomena I mean.
You make the destinction between logic and the premises as if they’re destinctly separate things, but I’m not so sure that’s true.
One cannot separate Logic from premises and still be left with anything rational.
Take this example:
A is B
C is B
Therefore
A is C
This is only true because it has always been true in testable, repeatable, observations.
You’re objection should be “We cannot possibly concieve of a universe in which that conclusion is not true.” and that is entirely the point. Logic is instrinsic to the way we percieve reality; it can not be abstracted away from assumptions (premises).
Premise: A is B
Premise: C is B
Logic: Therefore
Conclusion: A is C
Logic cannot be trusted because it will always rely on premises that may not be correct.
This:
Premise: A is B
Premise: C is B
Logic: Therefore
Conclusion: A is C
Makes no sense.
Premise: Logic requires accurate premises to draw a correct conclusion.
Premise: There is no way to know for certain that the premise is correct, or that all variables are accounted for.
Premise: People shouldn’t trust something that isn’t always reliable.
Logic: Therefore
Conclusion: People should not trust logic.
You could say, “Well your premises could be wrong, so we shouldn’t trust your logic either!” Ya, what’s your point?
Seraiah,
There are different kinds of logical reasoning. Usually, people refer to logic as deductive logic, but it is not always the case. Anyway, deductive logic is about deriving conclusions from a set of premises. It is about what logically follows. Conclusions either follow or do not follow from any given set of premises. Just because a set of premises may be false or incomplete does not mean logic cannot be trusted. All it means is that one or more of the premises are false or that there are not enough premises to derive the conclusion.
In other words, arguments can be understood like this: Given this set of premises, this is the conclusion.
Now, whether or not those premises are true is an entirely different story. But that has nothing to do with the argument itself. You might also find The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov interesting.
Your first premise is false. Arguments require true and complete premises to draw true conclusions. Do not mistake logic for the argument itself.
Your second premise is irrelevant. Logic is not about truth. Logic is the method of reasoning. Certain disciplines use different kinds of logical reasoning in order to find truth. But logic is a tool, it is not a purpose.
There go your premises.
Or he’s making a false inference. You can test for formal/informal fallacies. But sometimes there are problems that are only difficult to detect.
A false inference is a false conclusion, which can only result from a set of premises that has at least one false premise or is an incomplete set of premises, or the argument is invalid.
No, one can make false conclusions, while all stated premises are correct. People are just more difficult to convince that something is wrong, when they check the premises and find them to be correct. Take ad hominem fallacies for instance.
Person A is stupid, Person A makes statement B, Hence statement B is false.
Premis A and B maybe correct after testing. It doesn’t however follow that said statement is false by the virtue of those fallacies.
The truth-value of the premises is an entirely different thing from the validity of logic itself. You’re just equivocating on the definition of logic, which in our case here can only result in conceptual muddiness.
In fact, if you take the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, then if you still have complains about the premises, then the actual fault is with ‘the world out there’ that happens to ‘occassionally’ be ambiguous, rather than any defect intrinsic to logic.
I’m going to quote myself again:
Now let’s look at what you said:
This falls under the part of my quote where I said “or the argument is invalid”. Even if Person A is stupid and makes B statement, ad hominem is a logically fallacy. In other words, it is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Logical fallacy = invalid argument