The Instigator
johnnyvbassist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is logic (the law of non-contradiction) flawless?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,126 times Debate No: 37693
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

johnnyvbassist

Con

Most debating is based on the presumption that both parties should use logic. I happen to believe that humans are so imperfect in every respect, that even our logical thinking, including the rule on non-contradiction, is flawed. This has major implications when issues of religion, supernatural, and predicatability of the unlikely. I would like the debat to deal with three issues specifically. I will open the argument for the benefit of my debate partner.

1. Can logic's reliability be proven outside of logic?
2. Can logic be overused to the point in which is is actually more damaging than useful?
3. Is there an ideally perfect logic that humans cannot reach?

(1) I do not see any concievable in which logic can be discussed outside of logically trying to proven. This presents a problem because if this is true, then logic proves itself. Logic tells us that this is begging the question, however is it ok to beg the question since logic is flawed? In this case I believe so.

(2) Logic is obviously useful, however I believe abuse of constantly relying on logic can make on loose touch with reality, as reality is often illogical. Therefore, logic can loose it's usefulness when used too much.

(3) There must be a perfect logic that all humans are seeking to use. However, since this logic is unattainable logic must never be considered the final say. It exists, but since it cannot be attained it seems rather pointless to fervenetly use a perfect logical standard as our goal. We may strive towards it but never expect it.

Thank you to whoever takes on this heady and confusing subject.
funwiththoughts

Pro

I accept and have not yet decided whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate.

"(1) I do not see any concievable [sic] in which logic can be discussed outside of logically trying to proven [sic]. This presents a problem because if this is true, then logic proves itself. Logic tells us that this is begging the question, however is it ok to beg the question since logic is flawed? In this case I believe so."

If it is ok to beg the question, then it is fine to prove logic using logic. Also note that the opponent is using a logical argument to decide that begging the question is OK-therefore presupposing his resolution is wrong before even making his argument. Also, note "since" logic is flawed, not "if"-Therefore, if I do not agree that logic is flawed, his argument has no validity to begin with.

"(2) Logic is obviously useful, however I believe abuse of constantly relying on logic can make on [sic] loose touch with reality, as reality is often illogical. Therefore, logic can loose [sic] it's usefulness when used too much."

My opponent provides no evidence or source for the claim that "reality is often illogical". Therefore until he gives such I have no reason to believe this is true. In addition, this, too, is a logical argument, and presumes the law of non-contradiction (that logic cannot be useful while being useless, and that reality cannot be both illogical and logical).

"(3) There must be a perfect logic that all humans are seeking to use."

Not necessarily. Many people believe in things that they don't necessarily claim to have evidence for, but that they have faith in.

"However, since this logic is unattainable [sic] logic must never be considered the final say."

My opponent provides no reason why this logic is unattainable, and his argument is a non-sequitur.

"It exists, but since it cannot be attained it seems rather pointless to fervenetly [sic] use a perfect logical standard as our goal."

My opponent provides no reason why it cannot be attained, so his argument is groundless. Furthermore, even if this were true it would not make logic flawed.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
johnnyvbassist

Con

(1) "If it is ok to beg the question, then it is fine to prove logic using logic." Begging the question is the following, "Logic is not flawed because logic is not flawed." This is not ok in any scenario except the one we are discussing. So this statement actually disproves itself in one way or another. Either Logic has flaws because there is no way to prove that it does not, or logic has flaws because you can logically prove that it does. The problem I am addressing is the fact that if we rely on Logic long enough. we realize it is flawed in it's endeavour to seek truth.

For example, if two men look at a tree and one claims it to be purple and the other claims it two be pink, while the tree is in fact green, then both these men are incorrect but not necessarily illogical. Maybe they were both taught their colours wrong from an early age, maybe one is color blind and the other is a pathological liar. Either way, these men appealed to their own logic and failed to be correct.

In this we find that logic is relative, making it flawed. The law of non contradiction states, "It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)" To two different men this tree was something to one and was not something to another and was something else in "reality." However, if by this law of non contradiction we assert that there is a real "reality" we must assume that there is something beyond our understanding that defines what is real (objective truth). The law of non contradiction cannot get us to objective truth because both these men were following the law of non contradiction to the best of their ability yet they were both incorrect.

(2) My reasons and examples for reality often being "illogical" are the following.
A. Nothing is perfect but all humans have a concept of perfect. How can we have a concept of something and even desire it without ever having a record of it?
B. Different people have different morals but everyone agree that there should be some form of morality. What is morality and who is to say it is good or bad unless there is only one true good and one true bad?
C. The concept of freefall. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com...)

There are more reasons and examples but my main point is that most people agree that things are not quite as they should be. If things are not quite as they should be then why do we have a since of "should be?" With this perspective, reality seems illogical to me because logically, there should be no limits if I have a concept of unlimited and have never seen it. My brain can think of things it should not be able to think up. This is why I believe reality is often illogical. Not impossible to understand, but often illogical.

(3) See Above

My opponent has failed to prove that logic is not flawed. I am against the concept that logic in perfect, and since I am con, it should be my opponent's object to show me how is logic is not flawed. He has not done so in the slightest. I hope I have better clarified my earlier statements.
funwiththoughts

Pro

"(1) "If it is ok to beg the question, then it is fine to prove logic using logic." Begging the question is the following, "Logic is not flawed because logic is not flawed." This is not ok in any scenario except the one we are discussing. So this statement actually disproves itself in one way or another. Either Logic has flaws because there is no way to prove that it does not, or logic has flaws because you can logically prove that it does. The problem I am addressing is the fact that if we rely on Logic long enough. we realize it is flawed in it's endeavour to seek truth."

I would argue that the law of non-contradiction is self-evident and therefore does not need to be proved unless you can find an example of something that defies it.

"For example, if two men look at a tree and one claims it to be purple and the other claims it two be pink, while the tree is in fact green, then both these men are incorrect but not necessarily illogical. Maybe they were both taught their colours wrong from an early age, maybe one is color blind and the other is a pathological liar. Either way, these men appealed to their own logic and failed to be correct."

This is not relevant because neither man is using logic. They are simply stating what they see.

Logic, n. 1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.[1]

No inferences are being made in your scenario, no reasoning is being used, no judgments are being made, and certainly there is no persuasiveness. There is no logic in your scenario.

"In this we find that logic is relative, making it flawed."

We find nothing of the sort. See above.

"The law of non contradiction cannot get us to objective truth because both these men were following the law of non contradiction to the best of their ability yet they were both incorrect."

Neither man is following the law of non-contradiction because neither man asserted that "it is [colour], therefore it cannot be not [colour]."

"A. Nothing is perfect but all humans have a concept of perfect. How can we have a concept of something and even desire it without ever having a record of it?"

I have a concept of unicorns, but this does not mean that I have a record of the existence of unicorns. "People have imaginations" is not illogical.

"B. Different people have different morals but everyone agree that there should be some form of morality. What is morality and who is to say it is good or bad unless there is only one true good and one true bad?"

Morality isn't "real". I do believe there is an ideal standard, but that does not mean there is an OBJECTIVE standard.

"C. The concept of freefall. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com......)"

Just because something is counterintuitive does not make it illogical.

"With this perspective, reality seems illogical to me because logically, there should be no limits if I have a concept of unlimited and have never seen it."

Non-sequitur argument.

"My opponent has failed to prove that logic is not flawed. I am against the concept that logic in perfect, and since I am con, it should be my opponent's object to show me how is logic is not flawed. He has not done so in the slightest. I hope I have better clarified my earlier statements."

The law of non-contradiction and the idea that, as an example, "If elephants are pink, and Nelly is an elephant, then Nelly is pink" and similar lines of reasoning are valid are self-evident and do not require proof, only disproof of examples intended to show otherwise.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
johnnyvbassist

Con

1) "I would argue that the law of non-contradiction is self-evident and therefore does not need to be proved unless you can find an example of something that defies it."

This would be an acceptable answer except it seems that logic doesn't play by its own rules. One would expect logic to have evidence. If it is "self-evident" then it should be "evidentinitselfwithoutproofordemonstration;axiomatic. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Yet your first definition is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." So logic seeks to find correct or reliable inference and yet has no correct or reliable inference? It has no proof or demonstration? It is flawed to use something for proof when that something itself cannot be proved. You must choose another definition and it would be nice for the sake of debate to stick to one simple definition rather than listing all definitions. For the sake of debate alone.

2) "This is not relevant because neither man is using logic. They are simply stating what they see." Can you please explain what exactly in my scenario was illogical? It is illogical to state what we see? It must either be using logic or not be using logic (being illogical). I do not see how it is illogical for both of them to argue there belief about the colour of the tree. Is it illogical because they are wrong? Then you are appealing to a greater, perfect, and true logic that humans cannot attain, which you have claimed a "groundless statement." You are avoiding the argument, not attempting to rebuttal it. Both these men do use reasoning, judgment, and are persuaded. You have failed to prove that they are not using logic, but have rather affirmed that these must be. Their reasoning is it is what they have been taught their whole life. They are judging the colour of the tree based on every piece of knowledge they have. They are persuaded and yet they are wrong. According to you they are both using logic.

3) If logic is not relative, then there is a truer logic we cannot attain, because my scenarios shows a form of logic that can be relative.

4) "Neither man is following the law of non-contradiction because neither man asserted that "it is [colour], therefore it cannot be not [colour]." By stating that something is something, they are stating it cannot be something else. They are actually following the law of non-contradiction to the letter. Yet they are both wrong. Logic cannot always be used in discovering objective truth and is therefore flawed.

5) "I have a concept of unicorns, but this does not mean that I have a record of the existence of unicorns. "People have imaginations" is not illogical." Are you claiming perfection to be imaginary?

6) "Morality isn't "real". I do believe there is an ideal standard, but that does not mean there is an OBJECTIVE standard." This is probably another debate for another time, but I find this foolish. If there is no objectivity in morality and only ideals then you are still stating a universal ideal. If it is universal then why can't we call it objective?

7) "Just because something is counter intuitive does not make it illogical." You must explain the difference if you are going to make this claim. Please do.

8) The reality is "Nelly" the elephant isn't always pink. All elephants may be pink but what about the exceptions? I believe exceptions to logic prove that it is flawed. Not unreliable on a normative basis, but not for find real objective truth. Perhaps all elephants are pink now, but what if tomorrow a purple elephant is born? Logic is confined to the time period in which it is used. It was not necessary illogical for people to believe the world was flat years ago, but now it is. Logic is so dependent on circumstances that it has flaws.

Please deal with my issues. Simply saying "that doesn't make sense" or making sweeping claims such as, "Just because something is counter intuitive does not make it illogical." While providing no reasoning or proofs does not contribute very much to the debate.
funwiththoughts

Pro

"If it is "self-evident" then it should be "evidentinitselfwithoutproofordemonstration;axiomatic. "

And it is. That something cannot be both [X] and [not X] is evident without proof or demonstration.

"It is flawed to use something for proof when that something itself cannot be proved."

It is, as I said, self-evident. It does not need to be proved.

"Can you please explain what exactly in my scenario was illogical? It is illogical to state what we see?"

NOTHING was illogical because there was NO LOGIC to begin with. This would be logic: Trees are pink, this is a tree, therefore it is pink. It would still be incorrect, but not because logic is flawed-rather, it is incorrect because it is used from a wrong premise. The logic here is 100% flawless, it's the premises that are assumed beforehand that are flawed.

"It must either be using logic or not be using logic (being illogical)."

Illogical means that the reasoning used is not sound and is not clear. There is no reasoning (logic) being used.

"Both these men do use reasoning, judgment, and are persuaded."

Neither man is using reasoning. Seeing something and saying it is not reasoning, nor is it judgment, and it is certainly not persuasion.

"Their reasoning is it is what they have been taught their whole life."

That's not reasoning.

Reasoning, 1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments.[2]

They are not FORMING conclusions, they already believe that it is [colour], so it is not logic.

"They are judging the colour of the tree based on every piece of knowledge they have."

No they aren't. They are seeing a colour and then stating it. That is not a judgment, that is an observation.

"If logic is not relative, then there is a truer logic we cannot attain, because my scenarios shows a form of logic that can be relative. "

Your scenarios do not show any type of logic at all.

"By stating that something is something, they are stating it cannot be something else. "

This presumes that the Law of Non-Contradiction is flawless, and therefore this argument is worthless for the purposes of this debate.

"They are actually following the law of non-contradiction to the letter."

No they aren't. YOU are using it to prove its own falsehood, which makes it worthless.

"Yet they are both wrong. Logic cannot always be used in discovering objective truth and is therefore flawed. "

The logic here is not flawed. Rather, their premises are flawed. They start from the wrong premise that the tree is [colour other than it actually is], and therefore arrive at the wrong conclusion. There is no flaw in logic here, only in human perception.

"Are you claiming perfection to be imaginary?"

No, I'm saying that having a concept of something you have no record of is neither illogical nor counterintuitive.

"If there is no objectivity in morality and only ideals then you are still stating a universal ideal. If it is universal then why can't we call it objective?"

It is NOT universal because many people disagree with it. It is my ideal and a common ideal, but not universal.

"You must explain the difference if you are going to make this claim. Please do. "

Next time you see a word you don't understand, try looking it up instead of asking for the difference.

Counter-intuitive, adj.:
1. counter to what intuition would lead one to expect:[3]

Intuition's guidance is not necessarily logical.

Illogical, adj.:
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning:[4]

The rules of logic are not necessarily what intuition would tell us.

"All elephants may be pink but what about the exceptions? "

Then not all elephants would be pink. This would be a problem with the premises used, however, not to logic itself.

"Perhaps all elephants are pink now, but what if tomorrow a purple elephant is born?"

Then the problem is that elephants aren't pink, not that logic is false.

"It was not necessary illogical for people to believe the world was flat years ago, but now it is."

It is nowadays known through science (not logic) that the world is not flat, however the problem was that the information necessary was not available thousands of years ago, and therefore the conclusion was wrong, but again this is a flaw in people's perceptions or knowledge, not in logic itself.

"Simply saying "that doesn't make sense""

Ironically, you have dropped all the arguments that I replied with this too.

"making sweeping claims such as, "Just because something is counter intuitive does not make it illogical.""

Sweeping, adj.
1. of wide range or scope.[5]

My claim was not sweeping. I was simply stating that they are different, not that they are incompatible.

[1]https://www.google.ca...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
johnnyvbassist

Con

"And it is. That something cannot be both [X] and [not X] is evident without proof or demonstration."
The problem with variables is that they do not actually define anything. If X and not X cannot be the same, then a X that = 5 cannot be the same as a Y that equals 5. Essentially you are saying that X is not Not-X because it is not X. If X=5 and Y=5 then X=Y but X is not Y but it equal in value to it. But what the distinguishes the two variables? Simply the variables in themselves. The flaw is that we have to set the terms for variables. I can say that One Color=Green and One Color=Blue. Therefore, One color is equal to One color, yet green does not equal blue. Then we say, "Well the premise is wrong" but I used logic. The law of non-contradiction, to my knowledge, does not add any qualification. Perhaps you will say, "You should say X=Color and Y=Non-color to follow the law of non-contradiction." But again, there are no qualifications presented for the law of non-contradiction, thereby making it flawed.

Pro's thesis:Logic (the law of non-contradiction) is without flaw.
"It is, as I said, self-evident. It does not need to be proved.:

You should not have engaged in this debate then. It is your job to prove not only that it exists, but that is without flaw. You have not attempted to prove this, but have set on disproving my points. You must provide some evidence for yourself if you are to have a "convincing argument" rather than a "critiquing argument."

"NOTHING was illogical because there was NO LOGIC to begin with..Neither man is using reasoning. Seeing something and saying it is not reasoning, nor is it judgment, and it is certainly not persuasion."

Observation is the most important task in any discussion of logic. I see something therefore it is something I am seeing. Duh. If we have no observation, we have very little perception. Though obviously a blind man could be logical, he would be at a disadvantage in my example. If one of the men asked, "What colour is that tree?" the blind man could answer "I have heard that trees are normally (x) colour." But the blind man would be at a logical disadvantage because he has no observation. Therefore, observation has everything to do with reasoning as well as judgment.

"It is nowadays known through science (not logic) that the world is not flat, however the problem was that the information necessary was not available thousands of years ago, and therefore the conclusion was wrong, but again this is a flaw in people's perceptions or knowledge, not in logic itself."

By this you at least acknowledge that our use of logic is dependant on our resource and knowledge. This again, appeals to my theory of a "higher" form of logic that transcends time. But you also made a faulty distinction between science and logic, which both are fundamentally rooted in reasoning. (http://www.sciencebuddies.org...) But what really concerns me is it seems that you are saying that people are more likely to have an error than logic. I get human error and it is a very real thing. But man created the terminology and language of logic so why are we to say they are not mistaken? If you had presented proof I would listen but we have philosophical likelihood rather than concrete facts about logic.

CONCLUSION
Logic is a method. My thesis has been that this method is flawed. Logic's object must be to find truth. Otherwise, the logic would be useless unless its result was an attempt at truth. Since logic has no use apart from its object it is both dependant and not infallible. Logic, as an ultimate method, is flawed. I am not stating that logic is not useful, or even accurate often. I am merely stating that as a method is flawed. Now here is the only real argument my opponent can use against me. If I claim that the law of non-contradiction is flawed I am claiming that it cannot be perfect. I am in fact, using the law of non-contradiction. By stating it is flawed I am stating it can be nothing other than flawed. It cannot be both flawed and perfect at the same time.

The problem is not that the law of non-contradiction is inaccurate or useful, the problem is it is flawed. It cannot work independently and is co-dependant on intuition. ( http://artificial-intuition.com...) If it cannot operate independently and must have premises that have already been logically concluded in order to be accurate! Therefore, logic can only be a test and can never be a complete method. Because of this assumptions always have to be made.

My thesis has consistently been to prove that logic is flawed. It has been my opponent's task to prove that it is perfect. If it is anything short of perfect then it is flawed. For one thing cannot be both perfect and imperfect correct? Or incorrect? One must decide whether they believe that to be true. Since one must choose (or not choose) to believe it then it is a matter of believing (faith) and not based solely on evidence. A system that operates solely on evidence but cannot be proved solely by evidence is flawed. Logic would not be flawed if the entire scope of knowledge were readily available to us. Since logic is supposedly eternal, unchanging, and all-knowing then our use of it is limited and, since it was created by humans for humans, it is inherently flawed.

I'd like to thank my opponent for his time and conclude with some additional sources for the voters and readers to struggle through.
Happy voting!

http://www.britannica.com...
http://www.theology.edu...
http://wyngman.blogspot.com...
http://philosophy.unimelb.edu.au...
http://roa.rutgers.edu...
funwiththoughts

Pro

"The problem with variables is that they do not actually define anything. If X and not X cannot be the same, then a X that = 5 cannot be the same as a Y that equals 5. "

The problem is that in this case, "Y" would not qualify as "not X" because Y is the same as X, even though it is stated differently. What it cannot be is something that lacks the attributes that define [X]. For instance, if only things that are blue can be swallows, and cheese cannot be blue, then it follows, that cheese cannot be a swallow. (Now, in this case, my argument, while logically valid and reaching a true conclusion, is not a "true" argument in a logical sense because it is not true that only blue things can be swallows. However, this problem is in my premises, not in logic itself.)

"If X=5 and Y=5 then X=Y but X is not Y but it equal in value to it."

From a mathematical standpoint, there is no distinction between "equal in value to" and "the same as".

"I can say that One Color=Green and One Color=Blue. Therefore, One color is equal to One color, yet green does not equal blue. Then we say, "Well the premise is wrong" but I used logic. The law of non-contradiction, to my knowledge, does not add any qualification."

You cannot use two variables in one equation and assign them different meanings. And the flaw is not in your logic, the flaw is in your misuse of variables.

"But again, there are no qualifications presented for the law of non-contradiction, thereby making it flawed."

If you take false premises, then you can get a false conclusion. But not because you used logic, because you used false information.

"You should not have engaged in this debate then. It is your job to prove not only that it exists, but that is without flaw. You have not attempted to prove this, but have set on disproving my points. You must provide some evidence for yourself if you are to have a "convincing argument" rather than a "critiquing argument."

The problem is that this is asking me to prove a negative. You are the one making a claim (that logic has flaws), not me. I do not have access to every single situation, so I cannot prove a negative. And once again, it is self-evident.

"Observation is the most important task in any discussion of logic. I see something therefore it is something I am seeing. Duh."

This is a tautology, and while technically logic is not reasoning. And yes, observation is important in logic, but observation alone is not logic.

"If we have no observation, we have very little perception. Though obviously a blind man could be logical, he would be at a disadvantage in my example. If one of the men asked, "What colour is that tree?" the blind man could answer "I have heard that trees are normally (x) colour." But the blind man would be at a logical disadvantage because he has no observation. Therefore, observation has everything to do with reasoning as well as judgment. "

But they are not the same thing, even if one is connected to the other.

"By this you at least acknowledge that our use of logic is dependant on our resource and knowledge. This again, appeals to my theory of a "higher" form of logic that transcends time"

Yes, it does. I fail to see the point though.

"But you also made a faulty distinction between science and logic, which both are fundamentally rooted in reasoning. (http://www.sciencebuddies.org......)"

This is an Association Fallacy. Yes, they are fundamentally rooted in reasoning, but in different types of reasoning. Science is about making inferences based on what we know (i. e., if I drop a pencil 900,000 times, and it falls every time, then chances are that pencils will fall if I drop them.) Logic is about making deductions based on premises. (i. e., Dropping pencils makes them fall. I dropped a pencil. Therefore, it will fall).

"But what really concerns me is it seems that you are saying that people are more likely to have an error than logic. I get human error and it is a very real thing. But man created the terminology and language of logic so why are we to say they are not mistaken?"

I disagree with the idea that man created the terminology and language of logic. Yes, they invented the word for it, but the universe would still have followed it before we invented it.

"If you had presented proof I would listen but we have philosophical likelihood rather than concrete facts about logic. "

You are asking me to prove a negative, and a negative which is already self-evident at that.

"Logic's object must be to find truth. Otherwise, the logic would be useless unless its result was an attempt at truth. Since logic has no use apart from its object it is both dependant and not infallible."

This is a non-sequitur.

1. Logic is a method of finding truth. (Agreed.)
2. Therefore, logic is useless unless we are trying to find truth (agreed, but this is not necessarily a flaw).
3. Therefore, logic can be wrong (Does not follow).

"It cannot work independently and is co-dependant on intuition."

Logic is not dependent on intuition. Logic can exist just fine even if intuition does not exist.

"If it cannot operate independently and must have premises that have already been logically concluded in order to be accurate!"

Yes, logic requires premises. This is not a "flaw".

"Therefore, logic can only be a test and can never be a complete method. Because of this assumptions always have to be made."

Nonsense! Another non-sequitur.

1. Logic is co-dependent on intuition (Not true to begin with).
2. Logic requires premises (Yes, this is true).
3. Logic cannot be a complete method of finding truth (Does not follow from the premises).

"Logic would not be flawed if the entire scope of knowledge were readily available to us. [...] and, since it was created by humans for humans, it is inherently flawed."

Logic was not created "by humans". Logic is a fundamental principle of the universe, which would still be flawless even if humans did not exist. The flaw is not in logic, but in human knowledge.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Interesting debate topic.
Posted by mendicant0 3 years ago
mendicant0
It really stinks that I can't accept this debate. It would really be a lot of fun. I'd have to say that the first problem is that he presupposes the law of non-contradiction. He says that logic is flawed, thereby presupposing that it is indeed flawed, instead of being both flawed and not flawed at the same time and in the same relationship.

It isn't possible to argue for logic outside of logic because logic is an impossibility to the contrary. It's a necessary precondition for intelligibility. Because this comment is using logic. Because the instigator is using logic. Because reality is logical. You have to presuppose logic. You cannot live consistently in a worldview without logic because you use logic everyday. Every decision, every thought, everything is built on logic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.