Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

why go with logic?

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:37:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
why do we go with logic?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:40:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kind of a vague question. What do you mean by "go with logic"?
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:49:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:37:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why do we go with logic?
why do we follow logic. Is logic anything more than a feeling like some people out there like to go with feelings emotions or faith. I personally favor a more rational logical approach. I always thought there was something wrong with the1st way but I was just thinking is there anything inherently superior to the 2nd way or is it just that I feel like following it?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:55:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 1:49:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:37:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why do we go with logic?
why do we follow logic. Is logic anything more than a feeling like some people out there like to go with feelings emotions or faith.

How is logic a "feeling"? It's quite contrary to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:56:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 1:49:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:37:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why do we go with logic?
why do we follow logic. Is logic anything more than a feeling like some people out there like to go with feelings emotions or faith. I personally favor a more rational logical approach. I always thought there was something wrong with the1st way but I was just thinking is there anything inherently superior to the 2nd way or is it just that I feel like following it?

Logic is a quintessential AAN, in that it's true in all worlds. Formal logic is a lot more than a feeling, it's an intersection of applied mathematics that's under the dominion of philosophy (well, there are two 'types' of logic, mathematical and philosophical). To "go with logic" means, I presume, that we just use the methods laid out in logic to produce, at the very least, valid arguments.
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:57:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 1:55:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:49:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:37:25 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why do we go with logic?
why do we follow logic. Is logic anything more than a feeling like some people out there like to go with feelings emotions or faith.

How is logic a "feeling"? It's quite contrary to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I dunno. I sort of feel that you're wrong.

Boom--immutable truth. Suck it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 2:02:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
We go with logic due to our impression that it is a reflection of truth, an assumption with, itself, cannot be founded on logic lest it be circular and in-fact illogical. Thus, an illogical foundation for the infallibility of logic is inescapable. And our obsession with truth, however misguided, is indeed just a chase after our emotions, as well.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 2:06:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 2:02:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
We go with logic due to our impression that it is a reflection of truth, an assumption which, itself, cannot be founded on logic lest it be circular and in-fact illogical. Thus, an illogical foundation for the infallibility of logic is inescapable. And our obsession with truth, however misguided, is indeed just a chase after our emotions, as well.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 2:16:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 2:02:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
We go with logic due to our impression that it is a reflection of truth, an assumption which, itself, cannot be founded on logic lest it be circular and in-fact illogical.

If logic rests upon logic, then how can it be illogical? For a thing to be based on logic, indeed it is inherently logical! It is not circular. That's like saying that axioms are circular or that axioms are fallacious.

Thus, an illogical foundation for the infallibility of logic is inescapable. And our obsession with truth, however misguided, is indeed just a chase after our emotions, as well.

I agree that logic may not lead us to the fundamental truths and essence of reality, but indeed logic is useful and effective in every other area.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:22:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 2:16:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/3/2011 2:02:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
We go with logic due to our impression that it is a reflection of truth, an assumption which, itself, cannot be founded on logic lest it be circular and in-fact illogical.

If logic rests upon logic, then how can it be illogical? For a thing to be based on logic, indeed it is inherently logical! It is not circular. That's like saying that axioms are circular or that axioms are fallacious.

Axioms are circular and fallacious.

Thus, an illogical foundation for the infallibility of logic is inescapable. And our obsession with truth, however misguided, is indeed just a chase after our emotions, as well.

I agree that logic may not lead us to the fundamental truths and essence of reality, but indeed logic is useful and effective in every other area.

I never said logic was without utility.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

Axioms are circular and fallacious.


The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:46:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.

So that means axioms are not fallacious
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 4:52:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 4:46:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.

So that means axioms are not fallacious

That statement is also self-refuting.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 5:01:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 4:52:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:46:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.

So that means axioms are not fallacious

That statement is also self-refuting.

How so ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 5:11:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 5:01:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:52:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:46:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.

So that means axioms are not fallacious

That statement is also self-refuting.

How so ?

You declared axioms non-fallacious on the bases of declaring my axiom of axioms being fallacious as fallacious.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 5:15:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 5:11:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 5:01:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:52:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:46:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:31:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/3/2011 4:29:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Axioms are circular and fallacious.



The axiom that axioms are circular and fallacious refutes its self

Yes it does.

So that means axioms are not fallacious

That statement is also self-refuting.

How so ?

You declared axioms non-fallacious on the bases of declaring my axiom of axioms being fallacious as fallacious.

Only because YOUR axiom was self refuting. Your axiom applied to its self, refuted it self. Not all axioms are self refuting.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:47:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 1:52:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
For language to even work, we have to use logic. The proposition that A is A--the law of identity--is what allows us to communicate, even if concepts themselves are subjectively defined (albeit collectively-subjectively).

How is this necessary, assuming language is not predicated on absolute exchange - which it is not.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:23:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:47:36 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/3/2011 1:52:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
For language to even work, we have to use logic. The proposition that A is A--the law of identity--is what allows us to communicate, even if concepts themselves are subjectively defined (albeit collectively-subjectively).

How is this necessary, assuming language is not predicated on absolute exchange - which it is not.

I have no idea what you're asking.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:29:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do we need the law of identity in order to communicate, assuming we are not predicating language to be a 1:1 exchange of truth (which it is not).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:35:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:29:08 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Why do we need the law of identity in order to communicate, assuming we are not predicating language to be a 1:1 exchange of truth (which it is not).

Without the implicit assumption that A is A, you can't ever really mean anything. You'd be assuming contradictions in everything you said. If you didn't assume identity, the sentence "I moved the chair" wouldn't mean anything since you wouldn't be assigning identity to any of those concepts. It would mean as much as saying "kasjhfakheiaueibnciwauefiawufaisud". The law of identity is what allows concept-formation to be possible.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:45:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:35:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Without the implicit assumption that A is A, you can't ever really mean anything. You'd be assuming contradictions in everything you said. If you didn't assume identity, the sentence "I moved the chair" wouldn't mean anything since you wouldn't be assigning identity to any of those concepts.

Why are you jumping from identity to contradiction, i.e., undefined. There is a middle ground which is fuzzy logic.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:21:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:35:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Without the implicit assumption that A is A

A is not A
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:03:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:24:30 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:21:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:

A is not A

Is A is not A A is not A?

ay?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 3:03:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:24:30 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:21:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:

A is not A

Is "A is not A" = "A is not A"?

ay?

Fix'd
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 4:21:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As you have just experienced in your last posts... To prove logic illogical is circular. For you to even have a thought is to assume "logically" that you just had a thought.

For you to even make "logical" sense to refute the validity of logic... You would need to think logically, which in turn is self refuting.

No matter what you do... You can not prove logic to be false. If you tried... You would be using logic.

Logic always wins. It is truth. That is why we use it, because we don't have a choice. All we have a choice in, is what level of logic we apply to our existence. Even accepting that you exist, because you know you are experiencing something at this very moment that you are reading these words, is using logic.

Logic is pure truth. This cannot be doubted. For even to justify your doubt you would have to use logic.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -