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

[Pattern-chaser]

However, it seems we are not using the word "logical" in the same way and therefore talking in different directions.

The foundation of a valid argument is sound reasoning. That is why a reasonable argument is logical. If you are thinking differently than that, we might as well be speaking to each other in different languages.

You have described certain chains of reasoning as "logical", so I ask you what is the 'logic' that you refer to? What is your understanding of "logic", that allows you to use the words "logic" and "logically" as you have done?

To you, are "logic" and "reason" much the same thing? If not, how do you think they differ? What do these two words mean to you; what is the meaning you intend when you use them?

[Fanman]

Fanman,

I have answered your many questions as best I can, but we are not progressing. So let me put a question to you:

You have described certain chains of reasoning as "logical", so I ask you what is the 'logic' that you refer to? What is your understanding of "logic", that allows you to use the words "logic" and "logically" as you have done?

For me, logic means following a valid (as opposed to nonsensical) chain of reasoning reflective of reality, sensible thinking (within the parameters of the subject) and decision-making. It involves considering the relevant circumstances, facts and concepts. And through reason, reaching conclusions that pass the test of applied critical thinking. It should be acceptable or recognisable (as logic) by others and sound. When I use the term "logically". I mean when that, or a similar process, was used to conclude or determine something.

[Gee]

Pattern-chaser,

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.

I think the lack of evidence provides sufficient reason to reject the idea. And can be premise.

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'.

I’m not sure about that. Let’s look at the argument as a syllogism.

Premise 1. God’s existence is a maybe - because His existence cannot be proved or disproved.

You don't know what "God" is, so it is not unreasonable for you to state that his existence can not be proved or disproved. The most valid explanation for "God" is that he is an interpretation of an interpretation of a dream, which would be difficult to prove. On the other hand, that "dream" has been dreamt by people in all cultures around the world since before recorded history, which lends credence to it's validity.

Premise 2. There is no objective evidence for God’s existence - The evidence purporting His existence is anecdotal.

This is a crock. According to this, consciousness is not real because the evidence for it is "anecdotal". You are confusing anecdotal evidence with scientific evidence.

Conclusion. Since there is no objective evidence for God’s existence. And I do not believe the anecdotal evidence is strong enough. I reject the claim that God exists.

Your conclusion is invalid because your premises are invalid.

On the face of it, this syllogism doesn’t strike me as not logically valid. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that, since the "God" idea originates in the unconscious aspect of mind, you would have to have some idea of the logic in the unconscious in order to make any kind of valid statement. Is the logic in the unconscious that much different than the logic in the rational mind? Yep. For one thing, time is irrelevant to the unconscious, which throws a lot of rational logic out the window. If you throw out time, then if Ruth is Mary's mother, then Mary is Ruth's mother, because without time, the unconscious would only recognize the relationship of mother and daughter without direction. Weird.

The unusual logic in the unconscious that applies to the "God" idea is that "the part represents the whole". If you eat an apple (the part) and like it, you will assume that all apples (the whole) are good. If your mother was kind and protective (the part), you will be shocked to learn that another mother (part of the whole) murdered her baby. This "part representing the whole" idea is instinctive and originates in the unconscious -- probably of all species. Since each of us is conscious (the parts), then we represent the whole of consciousness, "God". So "God" would look like us, talk in our language, dress like us, and be part of our culture. This is why the various "Gods" around the world reflect the cultures that they represent. My Great-Aunt painted an oil of the Open Heart of Jesus in her late teens or early twenties, which would be around 1910, and she painted him as a Caucasian blue-eyed blond. I have seen portraits of Jesus in Mexico where he looks darkly Spanish; everywhere he is painted, he picks up the hair styles, clothing, and features of the culture that made the representation of him. I would not be surprised to find paintings of him in the Orient that have slanted eyes, and we know what his heritage is.

So when people argue, which "God" are you referring to, I state that they are all the same God. The differences between them are cultural and superficial, but the core of each is the same. You can not base any logical conclusions on the superficial, only the core ideas can give us any truth.

A perfectly reasonable conclusion concerning an unprovable situation.

Reasonable yes; logical no.

My first thought is that your two 'premises' follow from one another, as though they comprise one declaration separated into two parts, perhaps artificially. It seems to me that "God's existence is a maybe" because "There is no objective evidence for God’s existence". If this is the case, then your argument offers only one premise, and I don't think (?) a conclusion can be correctly and logically deduced from a single premise.

Note the bolded text above. (My bolding) This is an example of the "logic" that I have found throughout this thread. It accepts evidence that is accepted by science and denies all other evidence. This is why I stated earlier that PC sees science as being the beginning and end of knowledge, because nothing can really be known unless validated by science -- in his opinion. I do not agree. We have three disciplines that search for knowledge, science, philosophy, and religion.

Gee

[Fanman]

Gee,

Note the bolded text above. (My bolding) This is an example of the "logic" that I have found throughout this thread. It accepts evidence that is accepted by science and denies all other evidence. This is why I stated earlier that PC sees science as being the beginning and end of knowledge, because nothing can really be known unless validated by science -- in his opinion. I do not agree. We have three disciplines that search for knowledge, science, philosophy, and religion.

I don’t deny all other forms of evidence. I have beliefs that others would reject the reality of. But in my view, they are logical because they correspond with reality and various sources of information (intersubjectivity). I believe that scientific evidence is the most valid form of evidence. Indeed, the scientific method is excellent and rigorous. But I do not reject all the conclusions reached by philosophy or religion as long as I can bring them under logical comprehension or if I find veracity or shared experience in the anecdotal evidence.

[Pattern-chaser]

My first thought is that your two 'premises' follow from one another, as though they comprise one declaration separated into two parts, perhaps artificially. It seems to me that "God's existence is a maybe" because "There is no objective evidence for God’s existence". If this is the case, then your argument offers only one premise, and I don't think (?) a conclusion can be correctly and logically deduced from a single premise.

Note the bolded text above. (My bolding) This is an example of the "logic" that I have found throughout this thread. It accepts evidence that is accepted by science and denies all other evidence. This is why I stated earlier that PC sees science as being the beginning and end of knowledge, because nothing can really be known unless validated by science -- in his opinion. I do not agree. We have three disciplines that search for knowledge, science, philosophy, and religion.

Oh dear. PC "sees" no such thing; never have, never will. I was even going to observe that your "three disciplines" are insufficient, and that 'serious and considered thought' covers these and more, when it occurred to me that even this might be too limited. Perhaps non-serious thought also plays a part? Imagination, for a start, is also a useful investigative tool. Then there is human cultural and social interaction, which might also lead to worthwhile insights, and so on.

'When in Rome, do as Romans do'

When we enter the tiny and claustrophobic world of logic, we find that the limited and inflexible rules of logic are the only means of communication. Logic cannot entertain anything outside its own purview, I suspect. So it's not that logic sticks to its own rules, in despite of all others, as that logic is incapable of recognising any other way of doing/being.

This topic that I started many posts ago was (I thought) based solely in the world of logic, because the question I wanted to ask the assembled throng () is purely a logical one. And so I have been writing and acting according to the limitations of logic. In this topic. If one wishes to make a logical point, or to investigate a (solely) logical matter, one must use the perspective and vocabulary of logic. That is why you have seen from me the perspective you have observed.

But I am the first to acknowledge that the tunnel-vision view from the world of logic is far too limited for the purposes of philosophy, and for the purposes of humans, living in the real world. There is a great deal more to Life, the Universe, and Everything than logic.



[Also, please see my reply to Fanman, which follows this post.]

[Pattern-chaser]

For me, logic means following a valid (as opposed to nonsensical) chain of reasoning reflective of reality, sensible thinking (within the parameters of the subject) and decision-making. It involves considering the relevant circumstances, facts and concepts. And through reason, reaching conclusions that pass the test of applied critical thinking. It should be acceptable or recognisable (as logic) by others and sound. When I use the term "logically". I mean when that, or a similar process, was used to conclude or determine something.

...

[To Gee]

I don’t deny all other forms of evidence. I have beliefs that others would reject the reality of. But in my view, they are logical because they correspond with reality and various sources of information (intersubjectivity). I believe that scientific evidence is the most valid form of evidence. Indeed, the scientific method is excellent and rigorous. But I do not reject all the conclusions reached by philosophy or religion as long as I can bring them under logical comprehension or if I find veracity or shared experience in the anecdotal evidence.

Our disagreement is not a semantic one, where we disagree about the meaning or definition of the word/label "logic"; if it was, we could've agreed to differ long ago. We do disagree in that way, but that's a trivial consequence of something much more significant. Many/most of us recognise that logic is one of philosophy's core elements, probably a philosophical discipline in itself.

Although "logic" has come to carry a rather diffuse definition in everyday parlance, within philosophy it is a clearly and precisely defined thing. You insist on using the former, while philosophers use the latter. ... And this is a philosophy forum. So while I must accept your choice of how you use "logic", I think this marks the end of our discussion. For the way you use "logic" debases and denies the very existence of the discipline of philosophical logic.

It is a little odd, though, that you claim to regard science as the best, and maybe only, investigative tool we have, when logic — as philosophy describes it — is so central to science, and to scientific reasoning.

I started this topic to ask a logical question, in the sense of the philosophical understanding of logic. You are unwilling to discuss within this context, so I thank you for this sub-discussion, but we have no more to say to one another on this sub-topic. Take care.

[Fanman]

For me, logic means following a valid (as opposed to nonsensical) chain of reasoning reflective of reality, sensible thinking (within the parameters of the subject) and decision-making. It involves considering the relevant circumstances, facts and concepts. And through reason, reaching conclusions that pass the test of applied critical thinking. It should be acceptable or recognisable (as logic) by others and sound. When I use the term "logically". I mean when that, or a similar process, was used to conclude or determine something.

...

[To Gee]

I don’t deny all other forms of evidence. I have beliefs that others would reject the reality of. But in my view, they are logical because they correspond with reality and various sources of information (intersubjectivity). I believe that scientific evidence is the most valid form of evidence. Indeed, the scientific method is excellent and rigorous. But I do not reject all the conclusions reached by philosophy or religion as long as I can bring them under logical comprehension or if I find veracity or shared experience in the anecdotal evidence.

Our disagreement is not a semantic one, where we disagree about the meaning or definition of the word/label "logic"; if it was, we could've agreed to differ long ago. We do disagree in that way, but that's a trivial consequence of something much more significant. Many/most of us recognise that logic is one of philosophy's core elements, probably a philosophical discipline in itself.

Although "logic" has come to carry a rather diffuse definition in everyday parlance, within philosophy it is a clearly and precisely defined thing. You insist on using the former, while philosophers use the latter. ... And this is a philosophy forum. So while I must accept your choice of how you use "logic", I think this marks the end of our discussion. For the way you use "logic" debases and denies the very existence of the discipline of philosophical logic.

It is a little odd, though, that you claim to regard science as the best, and maybe only, investigative tool we have, when logic — as philosophy describes it — is so central to science, and to scientific reasoning.

I started this topic to ask a logical question, in the sense of the philosophical understanding of logic. You are unwilling to discuss within this context, so I thank you for this sub-discussion, but we have no more to say to one another on this sub-topic. Take care.

Yet you are the one who has concluded that an idea without evidence - cannot logically be rejected.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yet you are the one who has concluded that an idea without evidence - cannot logically be rejected.

This is an argument that exists solely within the context of philosophical logic, that you cannot or will not accept, or even recognise. Sadly, therefore, we can have no meaningful discussion about it.

[Gee]

Gee,

Note the bolded text above. (My bolding) This is an example of the "logic" that I have found throughout this thread. It accepts evidence that is accepted by science and denies all other evidence. This is why I stated earlier that PC sees science as being the beginning and end of knowledge, because nothing can really be known unless validated by science -- in his opinion. I do not agree. We have three disciplines that search for knowledge, science, philosophy, and religion.

I don’t deny all other forms of evidence.

I never said that you did, nor did I mean to imply it. The above paragraph was directed to PC. Your signature line makes it clear that you consider more than one aspect/direction when looking for answers.

I have beliefs that others would reject the reality of. But in my view, they are logical because they correspond with reality and various sources of information (intersubjectivity). I believe that scientific evidence is the most valid form of evidence. Indeed, the scientific method is excellent and rigorous. But I do not reject all the conclusions reached by philosophy or religion as long as I can bring them under logical comprehension or if I find veracity or shared experience in the anecdotal evidence.

But you and I both live in a time when science is almost worshipped. Science can be awesome, amazing, and incredible, showing us new technologies, new worlds in space, every branch of science has given us new ideas. So sometimes it is difficult to remember that, just like everything else, science also has weaknesses, flaws.

Talk to any well-trained scientist and they will tell you that science gives us facts -- not truth. Why is that? Well, there are a couple of reasons that I know of; the first is that science studies the objective and truth is subjective; the second reason is that facts require interpretation.

I have read a number of posts where it was stated that some scientific evidence proved the truth of some matter, but in fact science only provided facts which the person interpreted to be truth. When I was studying contract law, my instructor gave an example that I think clarifies this idea of facts requiring interpretation. He stated that the facts are that there was a hundred dollar bill in his hand, but now the same hundred dollar bill is in my hand -- so what happened? Did I steal the money from him? Was it a gift? A loan? A sale? A payment on a contract? These are all very different things, but have the same facts. This means that facts require philosophy and/or religion to help find truth, as they study truth.

Another problem with science is that if they can not test it, they tend to deny it's existence. 500 years ago, science denied that any species had consciousness, except us because we had language (and no one denies their own consciousness). They even went so far as to deny that babies, the deaf, and the mentally handicapped had consciousness if they did not have language. Then we decided that some animals were conscious, and eventually concluded that species with a brain were conscious. Most people still link consciousness to the brain, because a brain can be studied. Although mosquitos, flies, and spiders, all have brains, they do not have consciousness for unknown reasons, and other species like plants do not have consciousness because they do not have brains, although all species have survival instincts, which require some form of consciousness. So it would be good to bear in mind that science occasionally has trouble with the truth; so although, I find it to be a source of evidence, I do not find it to be a more valid source of evidence.

Gee

[Good_Egg]

The choice here seems to be between an approach that:
A) rejects propositions for which there is insufficient evidence in favour
B) accepts propositions for which there is insufficient evidence against
C) maintains an open mind on all propositions in the absence of sufficient evidence either way.

The choice between these cannot be made on the grounds of pure logic. Logic is the discipline which determines whether one proposition follows from others. Once your logic tells you that there is insufficient evidence, it can say no more.

The reasons that people use to choose between A, B, C may seem reasonable or not. If somebody you want to be nice to says something that's not definitely wrong, you may go along with it (approach B) for the sake of being agreeable.

If accepting a proposition has painful consequences, you may adopt approach A.

[Pattern-chaser]

The choice here seems to be between an approach that:
A) rejects propositions for which there is insufficient evidence in favour
B) accepts propositions for which there is insufficient evidence against
C) maintains an open mind on all propositions in the absence of sufficient evidence either way.

The choice between these cannot be made on the grounds of pure logic. Logic is the discipline which determines whether one proposition follows from others. Once your logic tells you that there is insufficient evidence, it can say no more.

I wonder if your final sentence says more than it appears to? Given sufficient reason to reach a conclusion, logic can guide us, if we choose to let it. But as you say, if there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion, logic cannot guide us, because there is no logically-valid path to follow.

I think it is reasonable to extend this slightly, for clarification. If we start off not knowing, and logic does not offer a valid step away from that state, then we should not take that step; any step. I.e. we should remain in our current, unknowing, state (pending the arrival of new information). I think that conclusion is compatible with logic and reason, isn't it?

[Good_Egg]

I think that conclusion is compatible with logic and reason, isn't it?

You've earlier (rightly) made the distinction between logical reasoning and what we might call "pragmatic reasoning".

Logic, or logical reasoning, tells us that we have insufficient evidence for knowledge (of whether some proposition is true or false).

We then have to decide, pragmatically, whether we will act as if the proposition is true, act as if it is false, or act as if either is a significant possibility. None of those options is either dictated by logic or contrary to the dictates of logic.

I think you're at risk of equivocation in your wording "compatible with". Which is justified in the sense of "not contrary to" but could be heard as implying "supported by". But it can be hard to find the right words...

The pragmatic choice will depend on the perceived consequences of each option (as in Pascal's Wager, for example).

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that conclusion is compatible with logic and reason, isn't it?

You've earlier (rightly) made the distinction between logical reasoning and what we might call "pragmatic reasoning".

Logic, or logical reasoning, tells us that we have insufficient evidence for knowledge (of whether some proposition is true or false).

We then have to decide, pragmatically, whether we will act as if the proposition is true, act as if it is false, or act as if either is a significant possibility. None of those options is either dictated by logic or contrary to the dictates of logic.

I think you're at risk of equivocation in your wording "compatible with". Which is justified in the sense of "not contrary to" but could be heard as implying "supported by". But it can be hard to find the right words...

The pragmatic choice will depend on the perceived consequences of each option (as in Pascal's Wager, for example).

I have only one, fairly minor, comment to offer:

None of those options is either dictated by logic or contrary to the dictates of logic.

Those options that do not directly follow logic are outside of logic, maybe even "contrary" to it, as you say. Logic is far too simple to directly support "maybe"; it can only manage binary-yes or binary-no. That is its power, and its limitation too.

[Lagayascienza]

But is that really so? Simple if/then/else statements can manage yes or no and provide another route to a solution. Logic isn't always a simple binary.

[Pattern-chaser]

But is that really so? Simple if/then/else statements can manage yes or no and provide another route to a solution. Logic isn't always a simple binary.

"Simple if/then/else statements can manage yes or no", which is binary: "yes or no". Logic cannot go beyond binary, it's too simple and primitive for that. Compare logic to arithmetic; the similarity is quite striking, in some ways.