The Instigator
creedhunt
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mhykiel
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Entirety of Logic is Circular

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mhykiel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 52979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)

 

creedhunt

Pro

Good evening,

Today I will be debating for the idea that all of logic is circular. I am very interested to hear my opponent's contentions.

Definitions

Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to a strict code of validity

Circular: Already containing am assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious
Mhykiel

Con

Hello Pro thank you for debating with me.

For now I'll just accept the challenge and wait for Pro's case
Debate Round No. 1
creedhunt

Pro

Hello Con, and thank you for accepting my debate.

Logic relies on assumption that nothing can be illogical.
This is because, in a hypothetical situation where logic does not apply, nothing can be said with certainty.
If we accept this contention as true, then within an illogical world, a logical one could exist. If we accept this as true, then logical and illogical truths could coexist.

I am interested in hearing my opponent's response.
Mhykiel

Con

Logic as you defined it is a path of reasoning within a strict code of validity.

Having accepted the debate I also accepted the definitions Pro is outlining.

Given so, My contention is with the first premise that "Logic relies on an assumption that nothing can be illogical". Later you state that within an illogical world a logical one could exist. This strikes me as fallacious because if you are asserting nothing can be illogical then there is no illogical world. Therefore your premise should follow

Logic relies on assuming nothing is illogical.
Therefore, a Logical world exists inside a logical world.

I Don't agree with that inference either however. Circular being as you defined it "assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious" We both can come up with many examples. The Axioms of Math, the presuppositions of Science (Laws of nature acted the same through out all time, etc..) and so forth.

I am Con to THE ENTIRETY of Logic... Much can be construed as circular. Hence Descartes reasoning "I think therefore I am" I would Argue the truest statement that can ever be made. In the effort to Logically ascertain the state of his own existence Descartes could find no deductive or inferred reasoning to absolute condition of his existence. But in the Action of thinking, and I hope to make this clear, the result of thinking can have circular logic and the reasoning can encompass assumptions,

BUT the action itself is free from assumptions. Therefore With the action of thinking, it LOGICALLY proves " I exist". and is non circular by your definition. So the Entirety, 100% of logic, follows pros assertion is false
Debate Round No. 2
creedhunt

Pro

I would argue that the basis of logic is a priori truths or axioms. We cannot have conclusions that do not arrive from the idea that a=a (a here representing an idea, or Aristotle's "essence"). For example, an unmarried bachelor cannot possibly exist, because being a bachelor (a) means being unmarried (a), so a=a. We can reduce all logical claims to extensions of this idea. I now hope to demonstrate why a being a depends on the conclusion that that truth has already been found.

My opponent has claimed that I am asserting that the illogical is impossible, when in fact my entire case rests on the ground that the illogical is possible, and thereby rendering logic fallacious.

I could shift the BOP to my opponent and ask him to prove logical contentions to be true without using said logical contentions, but we are running out of debate and I should make my point.

If we are to put forward the idea of a truth, then there must be an opposite contention that is false. When we say that a=a, that means that any situation where a is not a cannot exist. But what THAT means, is that if a was not a, then things could not be the way things are in reality. To simplify, the world that exists and the world without logic's inherent validity are not the same world.

In a world without logic (which would have to be one that cannot exist) you can have a world with logic, because in a world where logic does not apply the truth of it being illogical no longer needs to true in order to be true. In a world where something can contradict itself, something can both contradict itself and not contradict itself at the same time. So, in a world where things can contradict themselves (aka a world that does not exist), there can be a world which can exist. So if in a world where the illogical is possible it is possible to have a world where the illogical is impossible, then you could hypothetically have a scenario where this exact world exists within a larger impossible one. So if a=/=a, then a (which is not a) could hypothetically be a because it isn't a. Logically, the illogical is not bound by logic, so any logical conclusions you can have about its inexistence are dependant on its inexistence.

I really appreciate your time and wit.
Mhykiel

Con

Yes a few more rounds would be nice.
It appears that when you use the word Logic, you sometimes refer to the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a Logical Process. For instance before setting out on the process a scientist conceptualizes a hypothesis A equals A. Makes a prediction of what a test result will be: If I have A it will equal A. Then performs the test to find out if A=A or A=/=A.

But it is not the only Logical Process or only path to a understanding something true. There is Reasoning. Reasoning does not make a prediction. Deductive Reasoning. It seeks the certainty of Validity of a Truth statements on the premise that anything reasoned should match with prior experience.

There is also Inductive Reasoning that seeks to establish the probability of a truth statements claim.

For instance if I poke you in the eye, I use inductive reasoning to learn that this will probably hurt you because getting poked in the eye hurts me. I would say I can be 80% sure you will hurt. My truth claim This will hurt you is LIKELY and the reasoning for it is Strong Validly.

But after I poke you, and you claim "ouch that hurts" is more than just deductive for you. It's a Brute Fact! The pain is unmistakable to you. To you the truth statement " I hurt" is 100% True. To me I can assume it is LIKELY to be true. Even tho my Claim "it will hurt you" has an assumption at it's root; YOUR claim "I hurt" is not circular.

Can there be illogical things. Logic says "YES" because there are fallacies. There are lines of reasoning that we as a people agree can more often than naught lead to FALSE results. Logic as a study also states that one can logically infer currently from a set of premises a VALID Claim, even if all the premises are false. Logic says you can use the wrong numbers and still arrive at the right answer.

I think much of this is off topic. Given Pro's Assertion "The Entirety of Logic is Circular" given the definition Pro established. I have already proved wrong that there is some Logic (I think therefore I am, Brute Facts, Inductive Reasoning, False Premise -> Valid Claim) can begin with no assumptions and not rely on the out come for the starting conditions to be present.

Thank you for debating with me, I had a good time.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
I'd be very interested in spectating that debate.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
Oh. I was unaware of that. I'm going to have to do more research on fallacies.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
@Mhykiel: Certainly; I'd enjoy that.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
@creedhunter Circular logic is not a fallacy of reasoning; it is a fallacy of rhetoric. You have to be careful not to conflate the two. The argument (A=B, :. A=B) is perfectly valid, but it doesn't say anything meaningful. It is considered a fallacy not because the results are invalid, but because trying to use a circular argument to prove anything else is invalid.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
Well I referenced Descartes but paraphrased the quote "I think, therefore I am" to not use the term being to avoid the axiom of identity. But I did have a line of reasoning to address that. For one being is being used as a noun but its structure is a verb. the root of that verb "to be" and so it is not an identity but an action. etc.. but like you said comments after the debate like this could affect voting. So i gues we have to wait till you and me go at some debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
@Mhykiel Well, think about it. Could the statement, "I think, therefore I am," have any meaning at all if the terms could mean anything or nothing; i.e, if the axiom of Identity was not involved?

"I think, therefore I am" parses out to:

I am a being that thinks (a=b)
All beings who think are beings that exist (b=c) (the unstated but necessary second premise)
:. I exist (a=c)

For this syllogism to be valid, obviously several other statements must also be accepted as valid; first of which is that both a=b and a=/=b cannot both be true.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
Oh sorry I didn't see that last comment.

But yes, it came to me the first time I really explored Decartes' work.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
Rather than false, it claims it to be fallacious. Circular logic is fallacious, that's just one of the fallacies. A point can use a fallacy and remain valid, right?
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
"About the burden of proof, the reason I had that there was because I was claiming there to be no non-circular proof for logic, and that there was a longstanding burden of proof that has not been met within every point ever. My entire argument relies around the idea that no burden of proof has ever been met in a completely satisfactory way."

And if you had said that, just like that, it would have altered things somewhat. You could afford to be a bit less concise in your rounds, especially towards the beginning of the debate; if that was the meaning you wanted to convey, it was lost entirely.

Anyway, not going to argue the debate with you here in the comments; the votes must be based on what is posted in round. I'm not sure I had ever seen the line of reasoning about a logical world within an illogical world before; is it yours? Very clever, and an interesting line of thought.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
@chrysippus I want to say thanks for the thought out and well written comment to elaborate your vote. I and I assume my opponent can agree is was helpful
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
creedhuntMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
creedhuntMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the con that this became very off topic but very interesting. As most of this was off topic I am only judging on what points were toward the prompt. I agree with the con because of the examples he gave proved his point very well. The pro maybe should have changed the prompt to be more about logic in general than logic being circular. Cool debate. You should use a source here and there though otherwise voters can't legitimately give you those points.