Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gee]

Until you can separate the words "belief" and "religion", you are not going to understand a single thing that I stated. I do not want to argue the age-old science v religion crap as I think it is stupid. The point of my post was about logic. Logic changes when more information is added; philosophy tends to add time to it's considerations, which allows it to learn wisdom, changing the logic.

The problem here is not about releigion verses belief.

No, it is about belief vs logic, as stated earlier in this thread. That idea is a holdover from the science v religion debates of the last centuries -- and it is invalid. It is thought that 'belief' (religion) v 'logic' (science), but this is not true. Belief and logic are not opponents nor are they opposites; they are more like teammates.

Why do we use logic? We use it to determine what is true, or what we can accept as knowledge and believe. Once we believe something, we add that to our knowledge, so when we are setting up the premises for another query, we use our knowledge (beliefs) to help us determine the logic. Belief and logic are interdependent.

It is your failure to understand what is the difference between logic and evidence. Logic does not change. Evidence can change, and more information can change conlcusions but it does not change logic.

I understand the difference between logic and evidence and agree with you. It occurred to me after writing the last posts that I should have stated that the conclusion changed rather than the logic changed. Logic does not really change, but sometimes it is unrecognizable. This can be because all of the information is not available, or because there is a flaw in the logic, or because of a different perspective, which can appear to change the logic and can definitely change the conclusion.

Have you ever heard anyone state, "That's a man's logic." or "That is a woman's logic." or maybe "That is a child's logic."? You can argue that logic does not change, but it can be wholly unrecognizable because it is different when presented by a different perspective.

The entire thread is undemined by the title.

Agreed. I have thought that it is not a problem with logic as much as it is a problem with our expectations of logic.

The problem is not with Logic, but people's failure to select appropriate evidence and to select evidence that serves their personal prejudices.

They also select evidence that reflects their perspective, which is not as much about bias and prejudice as it is about experience and maybe even talent.

Let's try the same idea with a different subject. Say that a little boy lives on a farm in the country and likes to play outside. His mother informs him that the road in front of his house is very dangerous and he should stay away from it. He listens to his mother and watches the road carefully. Although he plays outside every day and watches the road every day, he has never noted any cause to be afraid of it. He has even seen squirrels cross the road without danger, and begins to doubt his mother's words. His whole life, he has studied this road and now knows that there is no real danger.

Is the boy wrong? I think that his logic is more pure than his mothers, so I doubt that he is wrong or that the road is dangerous to him. So does that make the mother wrong? I don't think so. She knows that surprising and unexpected things can happen, and even if they don't, he will grow up and one day drive on that road, so she feels a healthy respect for the dangers is a good thing. She has added the information gained through experience and she has also considered time, which changed her logic into wisdom.

Gee

Yes, thanks for the homily. But this example is not about a failure of logic. I'm not sure what you can do with this, but it does not address any psrt of the OP.

Actually, I think it does. In this thread, we have identified two areas where logic can fail; the first one is when we do not have all of the information to make the logic work; the second one is where we select premises that prejudice, bias, and invalidate the logic.

If we look at the "problem" that PC has with logic in the paragraph below, both identified failures are reflected. He states even if there is "detailed and in-depth support" for the logic, it is only "tentatively accepted". (1) The reason for this is simple, we never really know if we have ALL of the necessary information for logic to work. It is not like a puzzle box where all of the pieces are in evidence. Eventually if no other new information is found, then the idea gains acceptance.

Dismissing an idea without a second thought is easy if that idea is not supported by our beliefs. (2) The idea that pink elephants are the source of knowledge is pretty easy to dismiss, as is an idea that challenges a previously held "logic".

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. (1) And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification. (2)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I'm kind of slow sometimes.

Gee

[value]

How do I know this? SCIENCE!!

Really? ... please demonstrate the science which shows that believing a something can change reality.

Science discovered recently that 'belief' by the mind can overturn both nature and nurture when it concerns physiological development of the body.

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562- ... -behaviour

It is evident that belief is both powerful and substantial and it might not be correct to state that the pursuit of science is the most optimal method for steering or grounding justified belief.

The belief involved in transcending both nature and nurture might require something else than 'justified knowledge'.

astronauts decades long failed attempt to teach humanity about 'something beyond words' shows what it might be about. The astronauts are believing in something that is 'virtually impossible to describe'. And because science cannot explain their experience, almost nobody today knows about it, despite decades of attempts by astronauts to inform the public about it.

First we should understand why we don't already know of this profound experience, despite decades of astronaut reports.

Widely known in the space community as the Overview Effect, it is little known by the general public and poorly understood even by many space advocates. Phrases like "strange dreamlike experience", "reality was like a hallucination", and feeling like they had "come back from the future", occur time and again. Finally, many astronauts have emphasized that space images do not come close to the direct experience, and may even give us a false impression of the real nature of the Earth and space. "It is virtually impossible to describe... You can take people to see [IMAX's] The Dream Is Alive, but spectacular as it is, it's not the same as being there." - Astronaut and Senator Jake Garn.

What the astronauts experience concerns 'meaningful experience' and one could argue that a reference such as 'higher power' would intend to denote an aspect 'beyond the grasp of science', and that idea seems substantiable.

(2022) The Case for Planetary Awareness
overview-effect.earth

(2022) The Overview Institute
There's more to the pale blue dot than we know.
overviewinstitute.org

The quote of William James in this highly interesting post by Thomyum2 is applicable to explain it.

I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

[Sculptor1]

This is not entirely true. What we believe does affect reality, whether it is political, or our attitude regarding the success of a surgery, or just the chemistry that affects our moods, thoughts, and actions. Thought does not affect reality, but thought affects emotion, which causes belief, and belief affects a great deal. How do I know this? SCIENCE!!

Really.
You realy want to support this statement?
IN a thread about LOGIC, you want to say that belief can affect realtiy, from a factual statement where I say that reality does not care about what you beleive?

So please demonstrate the science which shows that believing a something can change reality.

Are you trying to tell me that the beliefs of the Russian people and the beliefs of the Ukrainian people have nothing to do with their reality?

Of course. All they are doing is creating phantom problems. Problems about things that do not exist in reality.

Nothing to do with the deaths, the losses, the destruction of cities -- because that is their reality. Wouldn't this fall under political science?

Death and destruction is real enough, but what they believe because of it is their own problem. The reasons (not practial) they think caused those deaths are not part of reality. Where they might be part of their belief system is not why people die. They die from real bullets, not from fanciful ideas like nationhood, or race.

Why is it that a good attitude or a poor attitude can make a difference in life. Attitude is just what a person believes. That should have no ability to affect anything, but it does.

Attitude is not belief. It is attitude (the biological disposition and metabolic state) thats helos form a belief. But you can believe all you want that you have cancer, but if you do not have it then you are not going to die of cancer. And if you have it and think you have not you are in trouble.
If I want to believe I am well then nothing is going to happen. If I eat well and exercise then I am probably going to feel better.

I was surprised to discover that when applying for an organ transplant, part of the testing and qualifying was about a person's belief in the outcome. Why should that matter? Why would the doctors even ask? Medical science is aware that emotion/belief affects medical outcomes; they don't like to admit it, but they have to acknowledge it.

I think you are misunderstanding legal consent with some air-0fairy view about "believing in oneslef" You can believe in yourself all you like but will still be stupid, and never get the job of brain surgeon without the smarts.

A neurologist in a science forum explained belief to me a few years back. He said that data, information, and imagination can all be considered thought, but are not necessarily knowledge. In order to be knowledge it has to be believed to be true, and in order to be believed, it requires some kind of emotion. I did not understand that, so he gave me an example: When you wake up in the morning the sun is shining, the next day is the same, and the next. Eventually you expect it to be there and it is a comfort to you -- this comfort and familiarity is emotion. If one day the sun is not there, the emotion turns to fear. The neurologist made it clear to me that we require some kind of emotion to turn thought into belief and knowledge.

Let's be honest. Reality does not care about anything, because reality does not have the ability to care. I interpreted your statement to mean that reality is unaffected by belief and emotion, which is why I stated that your statement was not entirely true.

Gee

[Crocodile]

Belief can change reality in the same manner as lie can change reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Subjectivity does not necessitate illogicality. [...] beliefs do not necessitate illogicality.

No, they don't "necessitate" a lack of logic, but a lack of logic, as here*, is very often a feature of subjective outpourings.

As I said in my OP, which carefully described the very highly constrained nature of the issue I was trying to discuss here:

Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

...or 'everyday' usage of the word "logic". [E.g. Star Trek's Mr Spock.]



* — I refer to your most recent post, all of it, not just the words I quoted, above.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

Time... Purpose... Opponent... may be more.
Sometimes we have not time for logic, only for instincts. For example, during real fight.
Sometimes we have not a purpose to use logic, we want feelings. For example, during listening of music.
Sometimes we have not an opponent who listen logic. So... sending to him logical argumentation is lost of time.

BTW. What is a problem with formal logic?

Your answers seem to describe circumstances where we specifically do not make use of logic. They do not seem to answer the questions you quoted?

[Pattern-chaser]

It is thought that 'belief' (religion) v 'logic' (science), but this is not true. Belief and logic are not opponents nor are they opposites; they are more like teammates.

These may be the wisest words so far posted in this topic (including mine).

[Crocodile]

Your answers seem to describe circumstances where we specifically do not make use of logic. They do not seem to answer the questions you quoted?

This is a rough list of possible answers for your question "is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification". Yes, this is permissible in the same situations when we don't use logic. If we don't have time, don't have a goal or don't have an appropriate opponent. For example, would you say some justification to an angry dog?

A conflict situation with the number of justifications is also possible, when one person think that he has enough justifications, and the second think that there were no justifications at all, but just an empty set of words.

[Fanman]

Subjectivity does not necessitate illogicality. [...] beliefs do not necessitate illogicality.

No, they don't "necessitate" a lack of logic, but a lack of logic, as here*, is very often a feature of subjective outpourings.

As I said in my OP, which carefully described the very highly constrained nature of the issue I was trying to discuss here:

Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

...or 'everyday' usage of the word "logic". [E.g. Star Trek's Mr Spock.]



* — I refer to your most recent post, all of it, not just the words I quoted, above.

I would quantify this as a weak response to my post. Which either highlights a lack of ability to deal with the points I've raised appropriately. Or not wanting to, period. The sad thing is, rather than refute what I've stated logically and reasonably (through argumentation). Ironically, you've just waved your magical "what you've stated is not logical wand". And somehow expect that to have significant meaning. But the hard truth is until you can show where my arguments are not logical through your argumentation. What you've stated in the above post is just an ad hom.

[Pattern-chaser]

Subjectivity does not necessitate illogicality. [...] beliefs do not necessitate illogicality.

No, they don't "necessitate" a lack of logic, but a lack of logic, as here*, is very often a feature of subjective outpourings.

As I said in my OP, which carefully described the very highly constrained nature of the issue I was trying to discuss here:

Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

...or 'everyday' usage of the word "logic". [E.g. Star Trek's Mr Spock.]



* — I refer to your most recent post, all of it, not just the words I quoted, above.

I would quantify this as a weak response to my post. Which either highlights a lack of ability to deal with the points I've raised appropriately. Or not wanting to, period. The sad thing is, rather than refute what I've stated logically and reasonably (through argumentation). Ironically, you've just waved your magical "what you've stated is not logical wand". And somehow expect that to have significant meaning. But the hard truth is until you can show where my arguments are not logical through your argumentation. What you've stated in the above post is just an ad hom.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But as you do, I acknowledge your complaint, so this will be my last reply in this exchange. I have no wish to offer offence.

By analogy, I have said that "here in the lounge, X is true." And you have responded, "Ah, but in the kitchen, Y is true too," and you are right, and I have agreed. But you have not responded to my point, as I have also said, with as much care and courtesy as I can muster. But then you respond again with, "yes, but in the garden, X is not true," and again you are right, and I have said so. But you still have not responded to my point. And so on...

Our only disagreement is your use of the word "logical", because you seem to be using a vague and everyday use of the word, when what is really meant is perhaps "sensible", or even "reasonable" (using everyday parlance). The word "logic" carries a variety of shades of meaning, and describes different types of logic, Boolean logic, formal logic, and so forth. So I described carefully the sense of "logic" and "logical" that I intended, so that there would be no misunderstandings.

It is totally OK for us to follow chains of reasoning that are subjective, but it is not correct to refer to such musings as "logical", because they are not, or they are only partly logical. The logic that I refer to is that which enables us to examine a syllogism (for example), and to conclude that, with correct and correctly-formed premises, the conclusion can be guaranteed to be correct. Subjective musing are not logical in the sense I have just described logic.

I think we are done here.

[Fanman]

Subjectivity does not necessitate illogicality. [...] beliefs do not necessitate illogicality.

No, they don't "necessitate" a lack of logic, but a lack of logic, as here*, is very often a feature of subjective outpourings.

As I said in my OP, which carefully described the very highly constrained nature of the issue I was trying to discuss here:

Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

...or 'everyday' usage of the word "logic". [E.g. Star Trek's Mr Spock.]



* — I refer to your most recent post, all of it, not just the words I quoted, above.

I would quantify this as a weak response to my post. Which either highlights a lack of ability to deal with the points I've raised appropriately. Or not wanting to, period. The sad thing is, rather than refute what I've stated logically and reasonably (through argumentation). Ironically, you've just waved your magical "what you've stated is not logical wand". And somehow expect that to have significant meaning. But the hard truth is until you can show where my arguments are not logical through your argumentation. What you've stated in the above post is just an ad hom.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But as you do, I acknowledge your complaint, so this will be my last reply in this exchange. I have no wish to offer offence.

By analogy, I have said that "here in the lounge, X is true." And you have responded, "Ah, but in the kitchen, Y is true too," and you are right, and I have agreed. But you have not responded to my point, as I have also said, with as much care and courtesy as I can muster. But then you respond again with, "yes, but in the garden, X is not true," and again you are right, and I have said so. But you still have not responded to my point. And so on...

Our only disagreement is your use of the word "logical", because you seem to be using a vague and everyday use of the word, when what is really meant is perhaps "sensible", or even "reasonable" (using everyday parlance). The word "logic" carries a variety of shades of meaning, and describes different types of logic, Boolean logic, formal logic, and so forth. So I described carefully the sense of "logic" and "logical" that I intended, so that there would be no misunderstandings.

It is totally OK for us to follow chains of reasoning that are subjective, but it is not correct to refer to such musings as "logical", because they are not, or they are only partly logical. The logic that I refer to is that which enables us to examine a syllogism (for example), and to conclude that, with correct and correctly-formed premises, the conclusion can be guaranteed to be correct. Subjective musing are not logical in the sense I have just described logic.

I think we are done here.

I'm not seeing things as you are. I don't believe I have stated anything illogical. My arguments were relevant to our discussion. You've decided to take up the position of an arbitrator rather than an interlocutor, and that is up to you. But I don't have to go along with it or conceed an argument when I believe my points are valid. Fine, we can end the conversation on this note. But I do not think you've done the work to show that your claims relating to my arguments are valid. Not by a long shot.

[Sy Borg]

Why is it that a good attitude or a poor attitude can make a difference in life. Attitude is just what a person believes. That should have no ability to affect anything, but it does.

I was surprised to discover that when applying for an organ transplant, part of the testing and qualifying was about a person's belief in the outcome. Why should that matter? Why would the doctors even ask? Medical science is aware that emotion/belief affects medical outcomes; they don't like to admit it, but they have to acknowledge it.

A neurologist in a science forum explained belief to me a few years back. He said that data, information, and imagination can all be considered thought, but are not necessarily knowledge. In order to be knowledge it has to be believed to be true, and in order to be believed, it requires some kind of emotion. I did not understand that, so he gave me an example: When you wake up in the morning the sun is shining, the next day is the same, and the next. Eventually you expect it to be there and it is a comfort to you -- this comfort and familiarity is emotion. If one day the sun is not there, the emotion turns to fear. The neurologist made it clear to me that we require some kind of emotion to turn thought into belief and knowledge.

Let's be honest. Reality does not care about anything, because reality does not have the ability to care. I interpreted your statement to mean that reality is unaffected by belief and emotion, which is why I stated that your statement was not entirely true.

Within all the argy bargy, I found this post interesting, with variants of the placebo effect being part of everyday existence. Not quite sure what it all means yet and might have a think about it before commenting further.

[Pattern-chaser]

You've decided to take up the position of an arbitrator rather than an interlocutor, and that is up to you.

Not "arbitrator", but only the person who created the topic, wrote the OP, and defined the terms of the argument. I'm sorry our conversation couldn't have been more fruitful.

[Fanman]

You've decided to take up the position of an arbitrator rather than an interlocutor, and that is up to you.

Not "arbitrator", but only the person who created the topic, wrote the OP, and defined the terms of the argument. I'm sorry our conversation couldn't have been more fruitful.

That is a fair point. It is your topic, so you have the right to direct it. But people aren’t robots - if the discussion strays from the parameters you intend, not so far that a different subject is discussed or goes off-topic. But within the natural course of things, I don’t see why you would have an issue with that or attempt to redirect it. If you were patient, something fruitful could have come from the discourse. Or it could have naturally gone back to the course you intend – something relevant to what you intend the topic to reveal. We were discussing the existence of God - relative to the (effective) 3 Piles analogy you created. Then things just got derailed. I felt like progress was happening. But anyway, perhaps ending the discussion was the best call, as I got heated up by what you said to me.

I am not expecting you to take advice from me. But if you complete a summary of the topic so far, then apply the principles of the OP to it. You can assess how people use logic to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. By the ones they have made.

[Pattern-chaser]

You've decided to take up the position of an arbitrator rather than an interlocutor, and that is up to you.

Not "arbitrator", but only the person who created the topic, wrote the OP, and defined the terms of the argument. I'm sorry our conversation couldn't have been more fruitful.

That is a fair point. It is your topic, so you have the right to direct it. But people aren’t robots - if the discussion strays from the parameters you intend, not so far that a different subject is discussed or goes off-topic. But within the natural course of things, I don’t see why you would have an issue with that or attempt to redirect it. If you were patient, something fruitful could have come from the discourse. Or it could have naturally gone back to the course you intend – something relevant to what you intend the topic to reveal.

Perhaps not the "right", as any member of the forum can post what they want, when they want to, on any topic (provided they adhere to Scott's rules). But I have found this topic, in particular, to be quite frustrating. As far as I can tell, not a single post in this topic, except for my own, has made any attempt to discuss the small and simple thing that I so carefully described and constrained. When I had given up hope, Sy Borg spontaneously wrote that any "unlikely" idea could be justifiably rejected, but she did not care to explore her position further.

We were discussing the existence of God - relative to the (effective) 3 Piles analogy you created. Then things just got derailed. I felt like progress was happening. But anyway, perhaps ending the discussion was the best call, as I got heated up by what you said to me.

Here I have to disagree. We weren't discussing God's existence, we were discussing an example of an idea that comes with no evidence at all, in the context (of this topic) that such things perhaps cannot be rejected without logical reason.

I am not expecting you to take advice from me. But if you complete a summary of the topic so far, then apply the principles of the OP to it. You can assess how people use logic to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. By the ones they have made.

I believe I have summarised the topic, quite a few times, but to no avail. I know what we all know about how people use something they refer to as "logic", in everyday parlance, but which does not agree with any dictionary or encyclopaedic description of logic. People do use "logic" in this way; it would be pointless to pretend otherwise.

It's like many other terms, that start off with a more-or-less formal definition, that are adopted into everyday parlance. Take "high-" and "low-functioning", as applied to neurodivergent people. They started off as terms invented by, and for the use of, medical practitioners, to distinguish between those who have special educational needs, and those who do not. But when they entered everyday speech, they took on meanings that those who know little or nothing about neurodivergence thought they 'sounded like' they meant. But they didn't (up until that time); now, their mistaken 'meaning' has obliterated their original and useful meaning. The result has been misunderstanding, and worse.

Misusing "logic", happily, does not have such serious side-effects, except perhaps in scientific or philosophical circles.

But I would distinguish this — the misuse of terms — from the way we humans reach conclusions about the things we choose to believe, with which I have no argument. I would even defend, to the best of my ability, the ways we think and consider things. Logic alone is insufficient to our needs, so we employ all kinds of other ideas, techniques, and ways of making our minds up about all manner of things. There's more to life than logic.

But this topic was created to investigate a small thing, in the small and simple world of logic...