Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

All the points you make are good. I find nothing to disagree with.

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.

That's right, we were. God was the idea we were referring to. I think where ideas without objective evidence are accepted or rejected is in how well they still relate to reality despite that absence. The strength of applied logic is the information or data available to us - as we use the information and reasoning skills together. Where that doesn't exist, some may feel rejection of the idea is logically correct because there isn't sufficient reason to accept the idea. God is one of the ideas that comes under the category of having no (objective) data or information. And that is one of the reasons that people logically (I know that is up for debate) reject it. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does provide a logical cause to doubt the reality of the idea.

Maybe we can look past our earlier disagreements and continue the discussion. It's up to you.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser,

All the points you make are good. I find nothing to disagree with.

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.

That's right, we were. God was the idea we were referring to. I think where ideas without objective evidence are accepted or rejected is in how well they still relate to reality despite that absence. The strength of applied logic is the information or data available to us - as we use the information and reasoning skills together. Where that doesn't exist, some may feel rejection of the idea is logically correct because there isn't sufficient reason to accept the idea. God is one of the ideas that comes under the category of having no (objective) data or information. And that is one of the reasons that people logically (I know that is up for debate) reject it. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does provide a logical cause to doubt the reality of the idea.

Maybe we can look past our earlier disagreements and continue the discussion. It's up to you.

OK, imagine an argument. Now imagine that we have examined this argument, with care and in-depth, and found it to be logically valid. Its conclusion is guaranteed to be correct, logically.

Now imagine that we change the argument. We remove a factual premise, and replace it with an assumption. The argument is no longer logically valid, and its conclusion is not guaranteed to be correct. But the argument may still be useful and usable to us, in its changed state.

We may correctly still describe the argument as "useful", or "usable". But we may no longer (correctly) describe it as "logical".

This is my one and only point. Logic has laws, just as arithmetic does. It is not open to subjective interpretation. It is much more simple and primitive than that.

To describe our argument, changed as I have described, as "logical" is simply wrong. There is no avenue for disagreement that I can see or imagine.

Your words, quoted above, should be worded as follows, if they are to be correct,

"And that is one of the reasons that people reject it."

The rejection you describe is illogical. And so I object to your use of "logically" in the quoted sentence; it is incorrect.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

All the points you make are good. I find nothing to disagree with.

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.

That's right, we were. God was the idea we were referring to. I think where ideas without objective evidence are accepted or rejected is in how well they still relate to reality despite that absence. The strength of applied logic is the information or data available to us - as we use the information and reasoning skills together. Where that doesn't exist, some may feel rejection of the idea is logically correct because there isn't sufficient reason to accept the idea. God is one of the ideas that comes under the category of having no (objective) data or information. And that is one of the reasons that people logically (I know that is up for debate) reject it. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does provide a logical cause to doubt the reality of the idea.

Maybe we can look past our earlier disagreements and continue the discussion. It's up to you.

OK, imagine an argument. Now imagine that we have examined this argument, with care and in-depth, and found it to be logically valid. Its conclusion is guaranteed to be correct, logically.

Now imagine that we change the argument. We remove a factual premise, and replace it with an assumption. The argument is no longer logically valid, and its conclusion is not guaranteed to be correct. But the argument may still be useful and usable to us, in its changed state.

We may correctly still describe the argument as "useful", or "usable". But we may no longer (correctly) describe it as "logical".

This is my one and only point. Logic has laws, just as arithmetic does. It is not open to subjective interpretation. It is much more simple and primitive than that.

To describe our argument, changed as I have described, as "logical" is simply wrong. There is no avenue for disagreement that I can see or imagine.

Your words, quoted above, should be worded as follows, if they are to be correct,

"And that is one of the reasons that people reject it."

The rejection you describe is illogical. And so I object to your use of "logically" in the quoted sentence; it is incorrect.

I believe that you are correct in what you've said. However, the absence of evidence is a factual premise. That means rejecting the idea can be considered logical.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that you are correct in what you've said. However, the absence of evidence is a factual premise. That means rejecting the idea can be considered logical.

This is wordplay, nothing more.

A premise is a proposition — a true or false declarative statement — used in an argument to prove the truth of another proposition, called the conclusion. Arguments consist of a set of premises and a conclusion.

In this case, the argument justifies (or not) the act of rejection. So the lack of evidence results in the lack of a premise. To reject the idea, we need sufficient reason, but we have none.

The 'argument' that leads to the rejection of <an idea for which there is no evidence> has no premises; it has nothing but a conclusion. This is not a logically-valid argument. It is more commonly known as an 'unfounded assertion'.

[value]

I recently discovered a topic by an author who might be Robert M. Pirsig (IQ 170), the author of the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies). His posts showed that he held a similar idea as you and was actively investigating it within his philosophical work.

New reading material for fans of Robert Pirsig
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18771

I found this interesting and looked up Pirsig in Wiki. This was the guy who wrote "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which was a book that I had heard of before. ... so I ordered his book. It came yesterday, and I think I am really going to enjoy it. Thank you for the reference.

If you enjoy it, then you should also read the sequel, "Lila, an inquiry into morals". It continues and develops the theme started in "Zen and the Art...". I like them both a lot. I re-read them both recently, and was surprised how different my (reading) experience was; I originally read them soon after publication. But enjoyable nonetheless.

Pattern-chaser is right.

As it appears, while Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance became the most sold philosophy book ever and was mentioned in Guinness Book of Records, his subsequent book Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals is dedicated to his concept Quality and might contain more valuable information on that subject, which is also expanded on through his website www.moq.org (Metaphysics of Quality).

Pirsig mentioned the following about his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in The Guardian.

"Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he (Robert Pirsig) is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says."

This is interesting and may provide a clue for the motive behind his book Lila. Pirsig spends 500 pages trying to define Quality in Lila, which he had concluded 'cannot be defined' in Zen. So it seems to have been a book that was written for academic philosophers (or from Pirsig's perspective, to get the concept 'Quality' on the map), which his website www.moq.org (Metaphysics of Quality) is intended for as well.

According to a reviewer, Lila is a timeless masterpiece and reads like poetry compared to Zen. This is interesting as well since ☯ Tao Te Ching is also written as a poem in an attempt to unlock an insight into a concept that 'cannot be spoken of'. Pirsig is known to have mixed Chinese and Western philosophy.

With regard discussion of the books. Thomyum2 mentions Pirsig as his favourite philosopher. He may be interested to discuss the books.

Thomyum2
Thomyum2.png (46.37 KiB) Viewed 2210 times

Pattern-chaser may be interested to discuss the books as well.

Did you read both books?

Yes, soon after they were published, and several times since then.

[Pattern-chaser]

Thomyum2 mentions Pirsig as his favourite philosopher. He may be interested to discuss the books.

...

Pattern-chaser may be interested to discuss the books as well.

If you think the interest is there — I hope it is — then start a topic to discuss Pirsig and MoQ?

[value]

If you think the interest is there — I hope it is — then start a topic to discuss Pirsig and MoQ?

If the account ChaoticMindSays is from Robert Pirsig, he has done so himself.

ChaoticMindSays: Robert M. Pirsig?
Pirsig.png (25.9 KiB) Viewed 2179 times

Metaphysics of quality
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4285

The concept Quality is on my to-do list for investigation. I will return to that topic later.

My own concept 'pure meaning' seems to be similar but would enter from a different logic, and some users here, including you, have expressed aversion for that concept, starting with a critique of the idea of 'pureness' for example. The concept Quality might be better (the capital Q actually does the same as my intended reference of 'pure').

An example of some thoughts by the user who might be Robert Pirsig:

Paradigm- A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Who thinks this is going to occur in science soonish? Who thinks it needs to?

...

There are a few books I would like to suggest to anyone interested in paradigm shift. "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance." And "Lila", Robert Pirsig.

Our reality is just a projection, a shadow cast by some other more (and less, perhaps, in a sense) substantial reality.

...

I believe human logic to be flawed and think that we need a reform of the logical method. THAT would be a very profound change, a system of analysis that works better than reason.

[Good_Egg]

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...

...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...

I'd agree that "logic" is used in slightly different senses.

To my way of thinking, wherever you have a "chain of reasoning", then the question arises as to whether the truth of one link in the chain follows from the truth of previous link, and that's a common meaning of the word "logic".

I think that it is meaningful to say that one event is more likely to occur than another, even in situations where there is no rigorous basis for assigning numerical probabilities. For example, someone who has studied or worked with widgets is more likely to be right about widgets than someone who has done neither.

And thus it is meaningful to talk of some Maybes being more or less likely than others.

That's one point where it seems to me that maybe you're over-simplifying.

The other part is that we often make decisions on incomplete information. And such a decision might be to act as if a proposition is true, or as if it is false, even though it's a Maybe.

Such a decision is neither logical nor illogical; it does not represent a "problem with logic". It is reasonable, or not, depending on the likelihood of the Maybe involved and the consequences of being wrong.

Is there a difference between choosing to act as if some proposition is true and accepting it ?

[Pattern-chaser]

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...

...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...

I'd agree that "logic" is used in slightly different senses.

To my way of thinking, wherever you have a "chain of reasoning", then the question arises as to whether the truth of one link in the chain follows from the truth of previous link, and that's a common meaning of the word "logic".

I think that's pretty close to the formal definition of logic. It's a simple and primitive set of rules that allow us to confirm, or not, the validity of an argument, as opposed to its contents. It is used in many contexts, as you say. And I would emphasise once more, in this topic, that my own comments and position apply only to a logic-only context.

In a broader context, argument, reason, and logic — the words, and the things they describe — are used in lots of ways, all of which are totally OK. There's a lot more to life than logic. ... And yet in a philosophy forum, where we regularly attempt serious and considered thought, perhaps just a little formality, and just a little respect for the more formal meanings that "logic" and "reason" carry with them, is justified?

I think that it is meaningful to say that one event is more likely to occur than another, even in situations where there is no rigorous basis for assigning numerical probabilities. For example, someone who has studied or worked with widgets is more likely to be right about widgets than someone who has done neither.

And thus it is meaningful to talk of some Maybes being more or less likely than others.

That's one point where it seems to me that maybe you're over-simplifying.

In many cases, you are quite right. But the discussions you refer to were considering Maybes which come without any evidence at all. Lacking evidence, it is not reasonable to claim likelihoods or probabilities, because the lack of evidence gives us nothing with which to calculate or estimate likelihood. We guess anyway, because that's one of the things that humans do, but we have no logical or reasonable basis for our guesses.

The only sense I can see, where this is "meaningful", is that it tells you how likely I guess the thing to be, even though I have no idea (and we both know that). That is not a *huge* amount of meaning...

The other part is that we often make decisions on incomplete information. And such a decision might be to act as if a proposition is true, or as if it is false, even though it's a Maybe.

Such a decision is neither logical nor illogical;

Such a decision is reasonable, and rational too (using everyday parlance and meaning for those terms), in the context of real life in the real world. It is not "logical", because there is no argument involved, but only assertion. Logic would require premises that, taken together, lead to the conclusion. Because there is no argument, as such, there can be no logic. So "illogical" or "alogical" they might be, but never "logical".

it does not represent a "problem with logic". It is reasonable, or not, depending on the likelihood of the Maybe involved and the consequences of being wrong.

See above for 'likelihoods'. There never really was a "problem with logic", as my topic title claims. The problem is with the way we use and apply logic, or fail to.

The problem is that we will only accept things if there is good reason, but some of us are prepared to reject some ideas arbitrarily, by assertion, without justification. Why one and not the other? — this is the core question that I created this topic to ask.

[Sea Turtle]

The problem is that we will only accept things if there is good reason, but some of us are prepared to reject some ideas arbitrarily, by assertion, without justification. Why one and not the other? — this is the core question that I created this topic to ask.

It is not arbitrary. How this works appears arbitrary until we consider how a human works under the covers (how mechanically the internal processing proceeds). Those that learn this either by instinct or by study, usually become very influential.

It requires us to be honest in what we are in a mechanical way.

I do not believe in arbitrary. I do believe in obfuscation.

By not accepting what we are we introduce obfuscation. The reasons we don't accept are interesting, much more simple to believe in arbitrary.


When someone does figure this out, others will tell that they do not like the answer and therefore will not accept it. This leaves us with an invalidated answer. Invalidated does not "feel" good. It is like a priest praying to have faith.


Plato's Cave......

[Pattern-chaser]

The problem is that we will only accept things if there is good reason, but some of us are prepared to reject some ideas arbitrarily, by assertion, without justification. Why one and not the other? — this is the core question that I created this topic to ask.

It is not arbitrary. How this works appears arbitrary until we consider how a human works under the covers (how mechanically the internal processing proceeds). Those that learn this either by instinct or by study, usually become very influential.

It requires us to be honest in what we are in a mechanical way.

I do not believe in arbitrary. I do believe in obfuscation.

By not accepting what we are we introduce obfuscation. The reasons we don't accept are interesting, much more simple to believe in arbitrary.

OK, perhaps I should've written "seemingly arbitrary"?

When someone does figure this out, others will tell that they do not like the answer and therefore will not accept it. This leaves us with an invalidated answer. Invalidated does not "feel" good. It is like a priest praying to have faith.

Not an "invalidated" answer, but a declaration of non-acceptance. Validity is a different concept. It might be logical validity, or it might carry some other meaning. But what you describe is not an example of invalidity.

[Sea Turtle]

Not an "invalidated" answer, but a declaration of non-acceptance. Validity is a different concept. It might be logical validity, or it might carry some other meaning. But what you describe is not an example of invalidity.

Would you explain more pls?

Validation is recognition of an idea, with or without accepting it. Invalidation is rejecting the idea for consideration.

[Pattern-chaser]

Not an "invalidated" answer, but a declaration of non-acceptance. Validity is a different concept. It might be logical validity, or it might carry some other meaning. But what you describe is not an example of invalidity.

Validation is recognition of an idea, with or without accepting it. Invalidation is rejecting the idea for consideration.

valid adjective

From Latin validus robust, from valēre to be strong.

1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent

Example: a valid criticism.

I suggest that validation is a little more than "recognition", and less too. It also applies more to arguments than ideas, I think?

In the context of this discussion, "validation" carries the implied extension of logical validation; the judgement of the argument's structure/form as being correct, but not necessarily its content, the judgement of which is more governed by reason, I think.

Invalidation is rejecting the argument from consideration.

I see little to connect validation with "recognition", "accepting", or "rejecting".

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that it is meaningful to say that one event is more likely to occur than another, even in situations where there is no rigorous basis for assigning numerical probabilities. For example, someone who has studied or worked with widgets is more likely to be right about widgets than someone who has done neither.

And thus it is meaningful to talk of some Maybes being more or less likely than others.

That's one point where it seems to me that maybe you're over-simplifying.

In many cases, you are quite right. But the discussions you refer to were considering Maybes which come without any evidence at all. Lacking evidence, it is not reasonable to claim likelihoods or probabilities, because the lack of evidence gives us nothing with which to calculate or estimate likelihood. We guess anyway, because that's one of the things that humans do, but we have no logical or reasonable basis for our guesses.

A slight expansion:

If we have conclusive evidence, we have no need to guess, as we're sure.
If we have good evidence, we can reasonably hope for good guesses.
If we have rough evidence, we should expect rough guesses.
If we have no evidence, we have nothing on which to base guesses. It's just as good to roll dice, or ferret around in the intestines of chickens.

[Sea Turtle]

Not an "invalidated" answer, but a declaration of non-acceptance. Validity is a different concept. It might be logical validity, or it might carry some other meaning. But what you describe is not an example of invalidity.

Validation is recognition of an idea, with or without accepting it. Invalidation is rejecting the idea for consideration.

valid adjective

From Latin validus robust, from valēre to be strong.

1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent

Example: a valid criticism.

I suggest that validation is a little more than "recognition", and less too. It also applies more to arguments than ideas, I think?

In the context of this discussion, "validation" carries the implied extension of logical validation; the judgement of the argument's structure/form as being correct, but not necessarily its content, the judgement of which is more governed by reason, I think.

Invalidation is rejecting the argument from consideration.

I see little to connect validation with "recognition", "accepting", or "rejecting".

I see, that make sense.

I was thinking as a different usage of the term.

recognition or affirmation that a person or their feelings or opinions are valid or worthwhile.