Alright, so I’ve been extremely busy the last few weeks. Work has been hectic combined with a finals week somehow survived in there. As a result, when I wrote my last past I was in a foul mood, and I apologize for the harshness in my words.
I don't feel the assault on my words was necessary. I agree with many of your points, and it seems that I have worded some things wrong to provoke those accusations.
I concur. It was unnecessary and unwarranted and I apologize for it. I decided to not respond for fear of repeating that tone of voice again.
Sorry if my information seems false, I've only recently taken a class on philosophy, so I might be rusty. I only know about axioms briefly, but I think they're basic rules to philosophy. Such as Achem's Razor. If that's not an axiom, then forgive me because I don't know. But it seems that these things can be wrong, even if they are set up to be rules for our logic.
My friend, that is why this information is publicly available. Not only that, but it’s very easy to look up on the internet. Occhems Razor is not an example of an axiom. It’s simply a tool one can choose to use. It’s not even necessarily true in any situation. Axioms are not basic rules.
Axioms are often assumptions by which an entire theory may be based upon. They are usually considered to be self-evident (like A = A, an axiom of logic). I apologize, because I think I didn’t completely explain myself correctly between my yelling uselessly.
Still, to go on further, there are different types of axioms. Some of which are like I explained above, self-evident, and others which are also as I explained previously, simply conditions by which a theory is based (math has many of these and they are called “non-logical” axioms, like a + b = b + a).
Read more on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom if you like.
Why do things have to be consistent?
That’s exactly the point. They
don’t have to be consistent. They are though and that’s one of the fundamental characteristic of a valid logical system/structure (one that ours entails).
As far as doubting observation, you say that we don't have to accept any observation. Doesn't that in itself mean that we can doubt observation? I never mentioned experiments, because it seems to follow a logical process, which we can trust all we can, excluding observation.
I’m sorry, but I simply think you don’t know exactly what you’re saying.
Are you doubting all observations entirely to the point that no observation is acceptable?
Or are you just saying a single observation can be doubted? If you are saying this, then there is a criterion for what makes an observation more or less reliable. In science, we often strive to depend on the more reliable kind (we avoid using our senses and instead use highly accurate and well-tested machinery).
Because something is created, it doesn't mean we have to believe it. I am just saying that logic seems to be the only truth we can fully verify, for doubt of observation and our processes will always exist.
Again, as I said above, it’s perfectly ok to doubt a specific process or observation. That is why we have created vast ways to attribute a quality value to our observations and processes. One would tend to be more accurate in one’s conclusions more of the time if one tends to choose more reliable (better) observations and processes. The scientific method, for example, is a more reliable process than simply making assertions based on no evidence.
Yossarian, before I respond to your post I have something to say to you. I am going to try very hard to not sound insulting, because I don’t mean harm in my words at all, but they need to be said. Yossarian, neither you, nor your source, are acceptable, reliable sources of what widely accepted definition are and are not. You make throughout this thread (and in many others) assertions of what certain words are and are not.
It’s extremely frustrating to hear when you say what is infinity, logic, induction, naturalism, and more but are no where near the correct, widely accepted definitions. If you define a word in a different manner than is widely accepted of course you arrive at conclusions that seem extremely faulty.
I realize that if I define classical logic as simply claiming things to be true then of course I can find myself with the conclusion that logic can often be wrong, but I’m not proving that the widely accepted definition of classical logic can be wrong.
There are plenty of reliable sources out there that explain these terms in detail. Instead of assuming you’re correct first, and then rationalizing by changing your definitions so you sound right later, perhaps you should try looking up these terms in a different, reliable source when everyone else seems to disagree with what you’re saying.
I'm not at all. You have clearly misunderstood the argument. Read it again. If you still have some misunderstandings, PM me.
Yossarian, I have a tip for you. When you tell someone they misunderstood something, you should point out what and why. I hate that I have to waste so much more time just trying to figure out what in the world you’re talking about sometimes. Stop being vague and get to the point. This doesn’t require PM’s. This is all part of the debate. It’s not a private matter.
Basically, I called you out on your own language. And I made an assumption about what you referred to because you decided to be vague and so you could have referred to what I was talking about or what you were talking about. Next time, try putting in the effort to more fully explain what you’re trying to say so we can avoid such confusion (I don’t mean in the original post, I mean when you claim that I misunderstood an argument put the minimal effort into rephrasing the part I “misunderstood”).
Now, I believe you’re not arguing that classical logic is a flawed or “bad” form of reasoning, but simply that our (as if humans all reason in the same manner) reasoning may be flawed. This is why it is simply not acceptable to consider this. Humans don’t all reason the same and often reason incorrectly. What are you saying? A human can even reason completely incorrectly throughout most of his life and then reason correctly during a single moment.
Why are we talking about this? You’re either attacking classical logic or you’re attacking the reasoning of humans. If you’re attacking classical logic, you’re using classical logic to do so. If you’re attacking the reasoning of humans, which I believe you are, then I don’t really care because it only serves to show that humans can reason incorrectly at times. How does this refute naturalism?
The only way I can imagine it refutes naturalism is to try to suggest humans could have reasoned incorrectly more of the time and still survived. It still doesn’t require anything supernatural to be at work here. Honestly, where can you take this further?
Well, you have grasped the point of the argument, but not the major thrust.
He is not saying that our reasoning is flawed. He is saying that Naturalism forces us to consider our reasoning abilities doubtful.
Again, you mean a human’s reasoning ability in this case, correct? We can and do consider our reasoning abilities. That’s why we have classical logic as an example of proper reasoning. We use faulty reasoning all the time and the only way to show it’s false is by proving it is so by correct reasoning (classical logic is the one more often used for such a task).
This is NOTan attack against logic or reason. It is an argument to absurdity. Accepting the premise of naturalism leads to an undesirable result.
Except that I completely disagree with this base assumption. Naturalism has NOTHING to do with assuming a single human’s reasoning is reliable. This is what you’re trying to argue. I’m sorry that I thought there’s no way in the world you were trying to argue something so incredibly ridiculous!
The following is how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that that
reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).” -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Where is this nonsense about reasoning coming into play in this definition? I honestly don’t care much about this term, naturalism. But everything else you (when I say you, I don’t mean the person you’re quoting because I don’t care to read a book on what they have to say, I’m just talking to you) stack on top of it is irrelevant.
This also does not attack consistency in the slightest. The "truth" of a system is ultimately irrelevant to how we can use it. This is also not an attack on science. Stop equating naturalism with the scientific method. They are not similar. Just a quick glance at the history of the two should inform you of such.
Take a gander at the
actual definition of the word naturalism and you notice that any attack on naturalism is actually in some way an attack on the scientific method.
The problem, as I have said before, is one of assertion. If you cannot definitively say "Yes, my system is true", I really have no reason to believe you, especially if I can set up a system that produces the same results. Can you give me a compelling reason for me to accept NATURALISM over, say, some flavor of deism or some random other system that lets me accept science as a valid process?
All naturalism states is that there is nothing outside of nature and that science is the method that should be used to investigate and discovery all of reality. Since you claim to have no issues with science then I assume your issue is with the possibility of something outside of nature. My answer to that is without proof of something outside of nature there is no reason to believe in it. Currently we have only proof for things existing in nature. Until there is proof of the supernatural I would choose to stay with naturalism. If evidence arises that shows otherwise (I highly doubt it will, though I’m open to the possibility) then I would abandon such a doctrine.
Disingenuous.
Who cares if it does not explicitly have the word consistency in it? It is an assumption made
It is not an assumption made simply because you claim it to be.
Different scientific discoveries can inspire contradictory conclusions. These conclusions though, are illogical, so by using logic (I’m referring to classical logic, but I guess this goes without saying now) we understand that one of the conclusions must be wrong for some reason. Still, science can arrive at both separately and we then must determine which one is true and which is false (logically).
Idiotic assumption. Why the hell would you even think that?
Because he’s doubting all of them without actually understanding any of them separately. The fact that he doesn’t realize that classical logic is not the only form of logic shows his lack of understanding of the concept. You would think before someone (this applies to you too) doubts something we all rely on that person would read up a little on it. This never is the case though. Those who take the time to study the concept hardly ever come to the conclusion that it is faulty. This is not a coincidence.
Science =/= logic. Its nowhere near logical.
"Classical logic" (Does anybody use fuzzy logic or its ilk in a general debate?) refutes the scientific method.
1: In event(s) A(B, C, D...) X then Y
2: In all events, X then Y
2 does not follow from 1 under classical logic, yet science says it does. Hence, Vro's comments on consistency are basically correct, albeit misphrased. If we assume that any given sample space is an effective representation of all space, then 2 does follow from 1.
Induction and deduction are both ways to use logic. Stop pretending otherwise. Logic requires consistency (the law of non-contradiction, you know, one of the laws of logic). Science does not.
No its not. Both of you are wrong.
Induction involves going from the specific to the general. We have to observe the specific. Somehow.
Observation is induction. At least the process of drawing conclusions from observations is. The two are basically equatable.
You contradicted yourself and agreed with me in your post. Induction is the process of drawing conclusions based on observations; therefore observation can not be a tool of induction. They are not close to the same thing.
Perhaps " Science assumes our senses are consistent" would be a better phrasing.
But science doesn’t assume our sense are consistent. If our observations are reliable (we don’t often use our senses as the most reliable observations) then the hypothesis perhaps not disprove by this use of the scientific method would be more reliable than if the opposite were true.
Wrong. Logic is an entirely deductive set of rules. We apply the rules of logic (the general) to a specific problem. We do not observe with logic at all. Observing implies we learn something new. Logic tells us nothing new. It just splits statement A into statement B, C, D... All of which are directly implied by statement A.
If I say all martians are green and Barry is a martion. Telling you that Barry is green tells you nothing new.
First of all, induction is a tool of logic. Stop ignoring this. Stop pretending that deduction is the only acceptable use of logic.
Secondly, just because you find ONE example of a logical statement that doesn’t tell us something new about the world doesn’t mean we can’t find something new about the world using logic.
Logic does not just split statements A into B,C,D. It also combines B,C,D into statement A.
Logic can easily tell us new things about the world. Even your example will serve.
Premise 1: All martians are green.
Premise 2: Barry is a martian.
Conclusion: Barry is green.
We did not know barry was green before. We came to that conclusion deductively. You can make this example extremely complex if you want, adding many, many premises, perhaps add sub-conclusions. Perhaps then you’ll see that before we state so, we don’t know barry is green. Therefore, logic can and does tell us new things about the world.
Only tautological statements tell us nothing new about the world. But multiple statements can lead to one conclusion which is a new piece of information we did not previously have.
No **** sherlock. Tell us something new. Logic is a priori, not a posteriori as you seem to assert. We DEDUCE with logic. We NEVER induce. We cannot observe X and not X. Our logic does not let us observe it. You just do not understand what he is saying and misinterpreted it.
Ok dude, chill the **** out.
He, like you, don’t understand logic. To doubt logic using logic is self-refuting. Therefore, the idea of someone doubting logic simply doesn’t make much sense to me. So I try to better explain to that person simple truths about logic. Not everyone realizes it’s self-defined or completely understand the concept of defining. You and him are not the same person.
Again, stop pretending that induction is invalid just because you claim it to be. Induction, like observations, can be used in a better or worse way. We can compare different conclusions that were inferred using induction and qualitatively assert which is a better use of induction or not. Just like how we can qualitatively assert to what degree this observation is reliable.
Try not to put words in people's mouths. We are not doubting observations. We are pointing out a problem.
We are doubting our senses. We hit every single thing you mentioned by extension
You completely ignored everything I said.
What does it matter if we doubt our senses or not? We can use machinery that is more accurate than our senses.
No, ALL logic. Stop talking in terms of "classical". Nobody uses fuzzy logic in debate. If they do, they explicitly say as such.
Alright, but it doesn’t change that most people don’t even know that alternatives exist or the difference between the two. I’m sure vro didn’t and to be honest I didn’t think you did either (until you explained you did). From now on I’ll assume you’re referring to classical logic when you say logic. Again, relax.
Now, if you were doubting all forms of logic I would have two things to ask you, what is wrong with classical logic and what is your suggestion to an alternative?
He is saying logic is a priori. We cannot doubt it. Can we doubt that 2+2 is 4? How do you answer somebody who asks "Why is 2+2=4?". Your answer boils down to "It just is".
This is the worst answer to any question.
2+2 = 4 because we defined addition, 2, 4, and the equals operator to work in such a way. For someone who constantly runs back to semantics I don’t understand why you don’t see the power in showing someone the simple truth that doubting a self-defined concept doesn’t make sense. Saying why does 2+2 = 4 is like asking why is fire the “the light, heat, and flames caused by something that is burning”?
-blazed
