Philosophy Discussion Forums

Gee wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 7:37 pm 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.
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. The entire thread is undemined by the title. The problem is not with Logic, but people's failure to select appropriate evidence and to select evidence that serves their personal prejudices.

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.

Gee wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 11:10 am When I looked up Pirsig, I found that not only did he have a very comfortable IQ, he had also battled schizophrenia. Many people do not realize this, but very high intelligence and genius often run hand in hand with schizophrenia in family lines. This was another connection, as I have schizophrenics in my family and would value an understanding from the perspective of a person fighting this condition. When you add his thoughts about the "God" concept, it is too intriguing an idea to pass up, 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.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 4:49 pm I'm not answering broken up bits. It's too fiddly and bores me. If I wanted to be bored I'd go do some cleaning.

OK, just respond to this one, then. It is the heart of our exchange, I think. Please describe the 'logic' you are using here:

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 21st, 2023, 5:25 pm Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 8:04 am OK, I will not simply say "oh no it isn't". Instead, I will ask you to describe the "logic" that offers us sufficient reason to put these things aside?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2023, 8:30 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 4:49 pm I'm not answering broken up bits. It's too fiddly and bores me. If I wanted to be bored I'd go do some cleaning.

OK, just respond to this one, then. It is the heart of our exchange, I think. Please describe the 'logic' you are using here:

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 21st, 2023, 5:25 pm Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 8:04 am OK, I will not simply say "oh no it isn't". Instead, I will ask you to describe the "logic" that offers us sufficient reason to put these things aside?

The number of things one can explore about are perhaps infinite, certainly functionally so.

If one who does not apply some level of prudence to studies, one can spent a lifetime exploring blind alleys.

Therefore, we generally apply judgement and prudence to decide which claims are worth investigating.

A relatively uncommon exception to what is fairly universal thinking would be those dedicated to esoteric exploration. For them, perhaps the only purpose in any journey is the experience, operating without interest in any destination. Thus, an esoteric seeker spending the lifetime exploring dead end ideas without applying judgement might lead a fulfilling life.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 21st, 2023, 5:25 pm Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 8:04 am OK, I will not simply say "oh no it isn't". Instead, I will ask you to describe the "logic" that offers us sufficient reason to put these things aside?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2023, 6:19 pm The number of things one can explore about are perhaps infinite, certainly functionally so.

Agreed. The Maybe pile contains many possibilities, perhaps an infinite number. One thing we can be sure of is that these possibilities far outnumber the philosophers who might give them consideration.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2023, 6:19 pm If one who does not apply some level of prudence to studies, one can spent a lifetime exploring blind alleys.

Therefore, we generally apply judgement and prudence to decide which claims are worth investigating.

Ah, now we're switching to a new topic. There is a vast difference between moving an idea to the Rejected pile, and deciding which of the possibilities on the Maybe pile we choose to consider.

Given the huge number of possibilities we might consider, I don't think it really matters how we choose the ones we'll look at. I don't see any logical rules or guidance in making such a choice. We just choose the ones we fancy; the ones we find interesting. Not logical, I don't think, but so what?

But I didn't ask you to describe the logic of deciding which item from the Maybe pile you might want to consider. I asked you to describe the logic that allows an idea to be moved from the Maybe pile to the Rejected pile, apparently without sufficient reason?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2023, 6:19 pm A relatively uncommon exception to what is fairly universal thinking would be those dedicated to esoteric exploration. For them, perhaps the only purpose in any journey is the experience, operating without interest in any destination. Thus, an esoteric seeker spending the lifetime exploring dead end ideas without applying judgement might lead a fulfilling life.

I think this is an argument against the existence of metaphysics, and metaphysical enquiry. Many metaphysical ideas come without evidence of any sort. So consideration of them cannot logically result in any firm conclusions. And yet I see value in such considerations.

As you say, the reward is found in the journey, not in arriving at a destination. But there are still things we can learn. Solipsism, for example, teaches us that some things we have always relied on, are not certain, while some things that appear outrageous cannot be logically dismissed — they remain as possibilities. Solipsism is one such possibility. So we cannot confirm or dismiss solipsism, but we can learn from giving the idea a little serious consideration. In this case, it taught us, and illustrated for us, some things about logic and logical reasoning that might not otherwise be obvious.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 8:04 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 20th, 2023, 6:37 pm What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

Distraction. For a start, how would you go about calculating the "odds" of (for example) God existing?

Logically, only sufficient reason is enough to Reject an idea. The 'odds' don't really enter the argument; the logical argument, that is. A logical argument is not dependent on 'odds', I don't think, but only on deduction.

I'm not sure that the application of logic — the logic that allows us to consider the structure of an argument and confirm that it is valid, or not — can be described as "calculation".

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 21st, 2023, 5:25 pm Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely.

OK, I will not simply say "oh no it isn't". Instead, I will ask you to describe the "logic" that offers us sufficient reason to put these things aside?

Imagine that you've been betting on whether a coin toss comes up heads or tails. How many losses in a row does it take for you to conclude that the other player is cheating ?

You don't have to answer. Just note that:

- the calculation of some particular number is distinct from the soundness of the logical structure of the argument. But the "reasonableness" of the conclusion increases as the number of losses increases. So soundness and reasonableness are two different things.

- the fact that you can never be certain isn't sufficient reason to go on losing money at every toss indefinitely. There's nothing wrong with accepting the hypothesis of cheating based on a high-probability Maybe. Or equivalently rejecting the hypothesis of not-cheating while it's a low-probability Maybe.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2023, 3:33 am Imagine that you've been betting on whether a coin toss comes up heads or tails. How many losses in a row does it take for you to conclude that the other player is cheating ?

If we take, for example, a syllogism, simple deductive logic is able to conclude that if it is provided with correctly-formed premises, that answer/conclusion is guaranteed to be correct. But the question you pose here is not accessible to such a simple application of logic.

Neither logic nor reason offer much guidance to establishing the threshold you ask about. They might 'advise' that too few losses are insufficient to reach a useful conclusion, and too many might be impractical. But they cannot just churn out an answer, and say that it takes 47.342 losses to determine that your opponent is cheating. That threshold is for the inquirer to determine, according to their needs and purposes in asking the question in the first place.

Perhaps the 'First Rule of Logic' is not that you don't talk about logic, , but that you only apply it in circumstances that are within its capabilities? Misapplied or misused logic is probably worse than no logic at all...

Good_Egg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2023, 3:33 am - the calculation of some particular number is distinct from the soundness of the logical structure of the argument.

Yes, except that, in your example, there is no argument, and therefore no "logical structure". Your question requests an answer that logic alone cannot provide. It could even be argued that logic has no place at all in the answer you ask for? [Although I do NOT assert that, but only mention it as a possibility.]

Good_Egg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2023, 3:33 am But the "reasonableness" of the conclusion increases as the number of losses increases. So soundness and reasonableness are two different things.

- the fact that you can never be certain isn't sufficient reason to go on losing money at every toss indefinitely. There's nothing wrong with accepting the hypothesis of cheating based on a high-probability Maybe. Or equivalently rejecting the hypothesis of not-cheating while it's a low-probability Maybe.

You misunderstand the Three Piles. The Maybe pile is not where we place the problems/ideas whose answer is a spectrum, or the like. It's where we put ideas that have not (yet?) been moved to the Accepted or Rejected piles. It's a simple analogy, nothing more.

Statistics and probability have nothing in common with the Three Piles analogy, and especially not with the "Maybe" pile. Probability deals with a different sort of 'maybe'.

Pattern-chaser,

Statistics and probability have nothing in common with the Three Piles analogy, and especially not with the "Maybe" pile. Probability deals with a different sort of 'maybe'.

If I were to say,

1. Due to the anecdotal evidence for his existence, I think the probability of God's existence is high. Therefore, I believe that God exists.

2. Due to a lack of objective evidence, I think that the probability that God exists is low. Therefore, I do not believe that God exists.

Why would you think that either of those statements is illogical?

Pattern-chaser wrote:Statistics and probability have nothing in common with the Three Piles analogy, and especially not with the "Maybe" pile. Probability deals with a different sort of 'maybe'.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 7:07 am If I were to say,

1. Due to the anecdotal evidence for his existence, I think the probability of God's existence is high. Therefore, I believe that God exists.

2. Due to a lack of objective evidence, I think that the probability that God exists is low. Therefore, I do not believe that God exists.

Why would you think that either of those statements is illogical?

Permit me to roll reason and logic together, and just type "logic", for convenience?

In your two sentences, you quantify — as "high" or "low" — a "probability" that you cannot quantify. That is 'illogical'.

However, the decision to believe, or not to, is not a logical one, or not wholly logical, depending on your style of thinking. Your decision to believe, or not, cannot be logically justified, but that doesn't matter, because you are already outside of logic anyway. You base your decision on some non-logical ideas or beliefs that you hold. Humans do that. It's OK, as long as we know, and admit to ourselves what we're doing.

What is illogical, and potentially harmful (in some sense), is to take decisions outside of logic, and then to pretend to ourselves and others that we are thinking and acting logically. Simple honesty (with ourselves as well as others) gets us out of many predicaments, I think...?



I think the most important, real-world, observation I can offer is that there's a great deal more to real life than just logic. Logic plays its part, for sure, but so do many other things and qualities. But when we do focus on logic, and employ it seriously, I think we need to acknowledge and follow its rules, no?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 8:58 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:Statistics and probability have nothing in common with the Three Piles analogy, and especially not with the "Maybe" pile. Probability deals with a different sort of 'maybe'.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 7:07 am If I were to say,

1. Due to the anecdotal evidence for his existence, I think the probability of God's existence is high. Therefore, I believe that God exists.

2. Due to a lack of objective evidence, I think that the probability that God exists is low. Therefore, I do not believe that God exists.

Why would you think that either of those statements is illogical?

Permit me to roll reason and logic together, and just type "logic", for convenience?

In your two sentences, you quantify — as "high" or "low" — a "probability" that you cannot quantify. That is 'illogical'.

However, the decision to believe, or not to, is not a logical one, or not wholly logical, depending on your style of thinking. Your decision to believe, or not, cannot be logically justified, but that doesn't matter, because you are already outside of logic anyway. You base your decision on some non-logical ideas or beliefs that you hold. Humans do that. It's OK, as long as we know, and admit to ourselves what we're doing.

What is illogical, and potentially harmful (in some sense), is to take decisions outside of logic, and then to pretend to ourselves and others that we are thinking and acting logically. Simple honesty (with ourselves as well as others) gets us out of many predicaments, I think...?



I think the most important, real-world, observation I can offer is that there's a great deal more to real life than just logic. Logic plays its part, for sure, but so do many other things and qualities. But when we do focus on logic, and employ it seriously, I think we need to acknowledge and follow its rules, no?

In the first sentence, the anecdotal evidence quantifies the consideration for high probability.

In the second, the lack of objective evidence quantifies the consideration for low probability.

I find it difficult to see why you would not recognise that.

Where there is perceived sufficient evidence (which is subjective) - the claim of His existence can and has been moved from the maybe pile. And in the case of there being no objective evidence (which there isn't). The existence of God (subjectively) - can be moved from the maybe pile - The movement depends on what people believe constitutes evidence and sufficient reason to believe in the existence of something. And let's be straight; God's existence is purely a matter of belief.

The logicality of the evidence (or lack thereof) providing sufficient reason for a justified (or valid) conclusion is questionable. But in the case of God's existence. That is always going to be a matter of opinion and debate. (a) because there is nothing to show that He exists to an objective standard. And (b) because there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for His existence. We can logically claim that all and any current conclusions about God are subjective or intersubjective.

We have no reason to claim anything relating to the existence of God is a fact. But that does not mean negative or positive conclusions about Him, based on current understandings, are not logical. It just means they are unprovable. Since one side of the argument (atheists or theists) must be correct.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 1:25 pm In the first sentence, the anecdotal evidence quantifies the consideration for high probability.

In the second, the lack of objective evidence quantifies the consideration for low probability.

No, they don't. It would be (tried-and-tested) statistical techniques that "quantified" them, and (as far as I know) there are no such techniques. Statistics cannot deal with anecdotal evidence, or no evidence at all, and deliver a probability.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 1:25 pm I find it difficult to see why you would not recognise that.

My thoughts exactly.



Quantify — v. to assign a numerical value to something. In this case, a probability.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 1:25 pm Where there is perceived sufficient evidence (which is subjective) - the claim of His existence can and has been moved from the maybe pile. And in the case of there being no objective evidence (which there isn't). The existence of God (subjectively) - can be moved from the maybe pile - The movement depends on what people believe constitutes evidence and sufficient reason to believe in the existence of something.

We can make decisions for all kinds of reasons, including subjective ones, as you say.


If I repeat this again, can we agree that I need not say it again? Thanks:

My argument refers only to an exclusively-logical treatment of the issue.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 26th, 2023, 1:25 pm And let's be straight; God's existence is purely a matter of belief.

Yes, absolutely! And one reason for that is that logic (alone) does not and cannot condone or justify the Acceptance or Rejection of God's existence.

Pattern-chaser,

No, they don't. It would be (tried-and-tested) statistical techniques that "quantified" them, and (as far as I know) there are no such techniques. Statistics cannot deal with anecdotal evidence, or no evidence at all, and deliver a probability.

I use the word probability to mean - The quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case [not my definition]. In this use of the word, the (anecdotal or lack of evidence). Do quantify (or justify) the considerations of God’s existence. The probability is the considered likelihood.

We can make decisions for all kinds of reasons, including subjective ones, as you say.
If I repeat this again, can we agree that I need not say it again? Thanks:
My argument refers only to an exclusively-logical treatment of the issue.

Subjectivity does not necessitate illogicality. Ironically, that is a subjective opinion.

Yes, absolutely! And one reason for that is that logic (alone) does not and cannot condone or justify the Acceptance or Rejection of God's existence.

Again, beliefs do not necessitate illogicality. Justified beliefs are (in part) supported by logic. Maybe you do not think - you have any logical reasons to hold yours, but that does not mean no one else does.

Also, I’ll restate my point that atheists or theists are correct - In light of that, the considerations of one side of God’s existence debate are valid - and therefore logical - Which means that God does not actually exist on the maybe pile. That pile is just the state of things based on the knowledge; we currently have.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 8th, 2023, 9:50 am 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?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2023, 5:41 am

Gee wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2023, 7:37 pm 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? Nothing to do with the deaths, the losses, the destruction of cities -- because that is their reality. Wouldn't this fall under political science?

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.

Gee