The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Ket wrote:As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics."X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.
RJG wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 4:20 pmOf course they are different. I admire your categorical confidence in logic. I have tried to show a truth that, I believe, philosophers need to understand: logic cannot fully capture reality. However, I have come to the conclusion, RJG, that we must just agree to disagree.Ket wrote:As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics."X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.
RJG wrote:You are referring here to logical 'arguments' (which can be valid/invalid and sound/unsound), and not to logic itself per se.
Pattern-chaser wrote:Ah, OK. Please could you explain the logic you refer to when you write "logic itself"? There are many meanings that "logic" can carry, and I'm not sure which one you intend.
RJG wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 10:02 am Yes, I am referring to the entire field of logic. Its usage is not just limited to making syllogistic arguments.Isn't it? In philosophy, it seems that it *is*, in general, "limited to making syllogistic arguments", and the like.
Wikipedia wrote: Informal logic uses non-formal criteria and standards to analyse and assess the correctness of arguments. Its main focus is on everyday discourse. Its development was prompted by difficulties in applying the insights of formal logic to natural language arguments. In this regard, it considers problems that formal logic on its own is unable to address. Both provide criteria for assessing the correctness of arguments and distinguishing them from fallacies.Is this what you're getting at?
RJG wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 10:02 am Logic is our innate (a priori), and our ONLY, means of coherency; of "making sense"I find that many people who claim to use a 'logical' approach to things often don't follow through. In the past, in other topics, I have referred to the different treatment given to accepting an idea/concept/proposition/etc and to rejecting it; different standards are applied, in practice. And yet 'logic' would seem to advise that they should both be treated the same. They *are* the same, inasmuch as the same logic should be used in both cases, the only difference is in the conclusion reached (acceptance or rejection). I see this, perhaps wrongly, as a lack of commitment to logic...?
And if we fully subscribe and adhere to it, it can be brutal on our indoctrinated beliefs. But, without logic, we can't get to, or know Truth (true knowledge)!
Sadly, many of us so-called "truth-seekers" are happy with our indoctrinated "feel-good" beliefs, and have no need to refute them with logic.
RJG wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 12:14 pm I agree we humans are emotional creatures. The "why" we are emotional is not as important as to the undeniable fact that we are in fact emotional creatures. Emotions are the biasing forces that drive all our actions. So, if one of our emotions is the very strong desire to know real truths, then logic 'is' "the be-all and end-all". It is the only game in town we have to finding real truths.I wonder if we should recognise the existence, and the worth, of both "real truth", and "feel-good" truths too? I think both have their place, and as long as we acknowledge their differences, both have value, IMO. Is that a worthwhile course, do you think?
Also we must recognize, that to have any chance of finding real truth, one's emotional desire to know "real truth" must be greater than one's emotional desire to find "feel-good" truths. Logic is the means, the only means, by which to find real truths. Emotions can't give us truths, they can only drive our actions.
Ket wrote: As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics.
RJG wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 4:20 pm "X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.
Ket wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 8:04 pm I have tried to show a truth that, I believe, philosophers need to understand: logic cannot fully capture reality.I think that when we say something like "Logic always trumps Science", it is worth remembering that the point of logic, and science too, is to help us understand the Primary Reference, which is Reality — Life, the Universe, and Everything. The Universe is the master, the reference, by which all else is judged. Reality over-rules Logic, and Science too, if/when such over-ruling should become necessary. I kind-of think that this is what Ket is saying?
Pattern-chaser wrote:Isn't it? In philosophy, it seems that it [logic] *is*, in general, "limited to making syllogistic arguments", and the like.Yes, I think you are correct. In general (for the bulk of philosophical discussions), the use of logic is confined to creating/forming syllogistic arguments.
Pattern-chaser wrote:Consequently, what some people call "logic", I call "reason". But our meanings and intentions are the same, we just assign a different label. Is that the case here, with us?I think this is close. You equate logic to "reason", whereas I equate logic to "making sense" (aka "rationality"). From my view, to know if our words (statements and arguments) actually "make sense" (i.e., are rational/logical), then we must pass the "soundness" check via logical syllogisms, and not commit logical fallacies, and not violate logical impossibilities.
Pattern-chaser wrote:I wonder if we should recognize the existence, and the worth, of both "real truth", and "feel-good" truths too? I think both have their place, and as long as we acknowledge their differences, both have value, IMO. Is that a worthwhile course, do you think?To your point, I think they have value in the sense that they both accomplish the same thing. They provide us humans with satisfaction. In other words, in our lives, we all seek after happiness, and satisfaction of our desires. The path we take, and how we get there is relative to each of us. Some may choose specific religious beliefs to achieve their "feel-goodness". Whereas in my case, my desire to know "real truths" (even if they are ugly and undesirable) still satisfies my desire to know them. So in this sense, we all seek and are after "feel-goodness". And there is nothing wrong with that. Life is short, so we need to find how best to live in a state of peace and happiness (or "feel-goodness") as much as possible.
Pattern-chaser wrote:I think that when we say something like "Logic always trumps Science", it is worth remembering that the point of logic, and science too, is to help us understand the Primary Reference, which is Reality — Life, the Universe, and Everything.Agreed. But my reason for saying "Logic trumps Science" is to help recognize the fact that these (Logic and Science) are NOT on equal footing, when it comes to ascertaining the truths of reality. Logic (objective truths) is closer to the ultimate truths of reality than Science (subjective truths), which in turn, is closer than Religion (faith truths), as per the "Hierarchy of Truths" (or the "Tiers of Epistemology").
Ket wrote:However, I have come to the conclusion, RJG, that we must just agree to disagree.Ket, I can agree to disagree. And thanks for the good civil/respectful discussions.
Pattern-chaser wrote:Consequently, what some people call "logic", I call "reason". But our meanings and intentions are the same, we just assign a different label. Is that the case here, with us?
RJG wrote: ↑December 19th, 2023, 2:45 pm I think this is close. You equate logic to "reason", whereas I equate logic to "making sense" (aka "rationality"). From my view, to know if our words (statements and arguments) actually "make sense" (i.e., are rational/logical), then we must pass the "soundness" check via logical syllogisms, and not commit logical fallacies, and not violate logical impossibilities.I didn't express myself as clearly as I thought I had. I meant to refer to the dividing line between logic and reason, which I place a little closer to logic than many people do. But the difference is not significant; it doesn't really matter if we call a borderline thingie "Logic" or "Reason" — it's still the same thing we're referring to. I thought this was the difference between us.
Spock wrote: Illogical, Captain.
RJG wrote: ↑December 19th, 2023, 3:09 pm Take care good friend, ...until the next discussion!And to you too!
RJG wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 7:56 am The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).This is an ontological problem--what exists.
From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.
Belindi wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2023, 7:22 pmMay I suggest you read up on nondual philosophy or Tao philosophy. There are so many ways to conceive of humans being fooled into thinking what our brains seem to make so obvious that we accept that perception as absolute reality. I cannot prove that I exist. I cannot disprove that I am the figment of some god's imagination. Nothing can be known for certain.RJG wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 7:56 am The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).This is an ontological problem--what exists.
From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.
Yes, for something to be happening, Descartes thought that there had to be something to pre-exist the happening, that's to say it was happening to a mind;the very thing he had set out to verify . Whereas what was happening in that room with the stove was , what always happens is, a necessarily function of brain-mind .Brain-mind is a happening with two aspects, the subjective and also the objective,
Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 24th, 2023, 1:10 am So, Ket, if "nothing can be known for certain", then you believe that we are left with radical indeterminacy.Quite so. But indeterminacy is not a bad thing. Certainty devolves into dogma and blocks the imagination from the freedom to discover.
If it were true that nothing can be known for certain, then I would have no choice but to accept and come to terms with indeterminacy even though there does seem to be some sort order to the universe that we seem able to perceive.
Ket wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2023, 8:59 pmThat's interesting, Ket. Lately, I've been trying to expand my mind and look beyond what I can see from my rigid, fortified, materialist holdout - I'm trying to see things from a different POV. It has not been easy. I have long practiced a form of meditation without knowing much about eastern philosophy. And I have always dismissed Idealism out of hand as just some silly Continental nonsense. But, materialism has become increasingly unsatisfying and I've come to realise that I need to understand idealism in order to progress. Therefore, I've needed to leave the Anglo-American Analytic philosophers alone for a while. So, I've been reading Descartes, Kant and Husserl. (Thanks to Hereandnow)Belindi wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2023, 7:22 pmMay I suggest you read up on nondual philosophy or Tao philosophy. There are so many ways to conceive of humans being fooled into thinking what our brains seem to make so obvious that we accept that perception as absolute reality. I cannot prove that I exist. I cannot disprove that I am the figment of some god's imagination. Nothing can be known for certain.RJG wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 7:56 am The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).This is an ontological problem--what exists.
From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.
Yes, for something to be happening, Descartes thought that there had to be something to pre-exist the happening, that's to say it was happening to a mind;the very thing he had set out to verify . Whereas what was happening in that room with the stove was , what always happens is, a necessarily function of brain-mind .Brain-mind is a happening with two aspects, the subjective and also the objective,
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
To reduce confusion and make the discussion more r[…]
Feelings only happen in someone's body, n[…]