Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Logic?

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question? For instance, say I make an argument against the law of non-contradiction, how would one even refute it? One could say I'm assuming the law of non-contradiction in my argument but one either has to assume the conclusion in the premise (that contradictions cannot be true) or one has to relate to some higher order principle which is just subject to the same contention as before.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:29:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question?

Nope. Basically, this is where doing philosophy too much gets you. Up the epistemological sh*t creek without a paddle.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:30:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:29:54 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question?

Nope. Basically, this is where doing philosophy too much gets you. Up the epistemological sh*t creek without a paddle.

Figures coming from a God damned agnostic like yourself.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:36:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:30:48 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Figures coming from a God damned agnostic like yourself.

See my profile: "There are two levels of beliefs - the first, the practical level, assumes all the facts about reality that make living life possible. The second, the intellectual level, is a mess of confusion and doubts that will be expanded in the future but never resolved."

It used to read: "Agnostic: about everything" :P

Basically, there seem to me to be insurmountable difficulties with justifying knowledge at all about anything whatsoever. But, practicality entails that I just have to assume some propositions and derive a worldview from them. That's just the way humans are wired.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 7:00:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think I see where you're coming from here, but if I misunderstood please tell me so.

I've always held the belief that when arguing from a logical point of view (either with yourself to ensure the logic you hold is correct or with another), you're going to have to make some assumptions based on the likeliness of the matter. For example, when arguing what effects an action would make on the poor, I have to assume that the poor live a certain way based on the evidence that I can gather. It's still an assumption as I can't prove that from the sample I took every poor person lives the same way, but to sit back and not argue the effects because of this simply because it's an assumption would be pointless.

On the other hand, you can't assume too much either. For example, I often make the joke about string theory to my friends (well, those who know about the subject) "If you have to make a new dimension in order to make your math work, chances are you did it wrong." However, I barely know anything about String Theory or even physics in general, so I don't actually hold that to be an actual point. It assumes too much without anything but idle skepticism to back it up.
My legend begins in the 12th century
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 7:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
if you begin with the assumption that the law of non-contradiction is not self-evident, you end up defining justification in a way that doesn't entail the law of non-contradiction. the moment you do that, it shouldn't be hard to justify logic without self-reference or begging the question - but of course, you have to recognize that what happened here is that "justification" itself was reinterpreted and redefined because of the fact that you began with a different set of background assumptions.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:24:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 7:00:10 AM, TheOrator wrote:
I think I see where you're coming from here, but if I misunderstood please tell me so.

I've always held the belief that when arguing from a logical point of view (either with yourself to ensure the logic you hold is correct or with another), you're going to have to make some assumptions based on the likeliness of the matter. For example, when arguing what effects an action would make on the poor, I have to assume that the poor live a certain way based on the evidence that I can gather. It's still an assumption as I can't prove that from the sample I took every poor person lives the same way, but to sit back and not argue the effects because of this simply because it's an assumption would be pointless.

On the other hand, you can't assume too much either. For example, I often make the joke about string theory to my friends (well, those who know about the subject) "If you have to make a new dimension in order to make your math work, chances are you did it wrong." However, I barely know anything about String Theory or even physics in general, so I don't actually hold that to be an actual point. It assumes too much without anything but idle skepticism to back it up.

This goes back to the whole pragmatic adoption of principles in order to function point that Kinesis made. The problem is that pragmatism is utterly incoherent. Some underlying principle or value will always need to be present in evaluating anything. This usually applies to ethics but I think it makes sense in the context of epistemology too. If one doesn't have any underlying value, then how does one decide when something has worked? This is my thoughts towards that. If I'm not going to adopt any rational standard on which to measure claims and evidence against then how do I evaluate anything at all?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:25:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 7:31:44 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
if you begin with the assumption that the law of non-contradiction is not self-evident, you end up defining justification in a way that doesn't entail the law of non-contradiction. the moment you do that, it shouldn't be hard to justify logic without self-reference or begging the question - but of course, you have to recognize that what happened here is that "justification" itself was reinterpreted and redefined because of the fact that you began with a different set of background assumptions.

I've never been a fan of shifting the goal posts to adhere to an intuitively held position. That's why I'm not a psychological egoist anymore.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:35:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Posted this on FB a bit ago, an interesting quote by Trostsky. Not exactly a logician but he certainly understood dialectical materialism.

The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human activities and elementary generalisations. The postulate starts from the proposition that 'A' = 'A'. But in reality 'A' is not equal to 'A'. This is quite easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens--they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point--in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar--a more delicate scale will always disclose a difference. Again one can object; but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true--all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself 'at any given moment'. Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of the 'axiom' it does not withstand theoretical criticism, either. How should we really conceive the word 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is a zero of time? But everything exists in time: and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation: time is subsequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

At first glance it could seem that these 'subtleties' are useless. In reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom 'A equals A' appears on the one hand to be the point of departure for all knowledge on the other hand the point of departure for all errors in our knowledge. To make use of the axiom 'A equals A' with impunity is possible only within certain limits. When quantitative changes in 'A' are negligible for the task at hand, then we can presume that 'A equals A'. This is, for example, the manner in which a buyer and a seller both consider a pound of sugar. We consider the Sun's temperature likewise. Until recently we considered the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But quantitative changes beyond certain limits become qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or Kerosene cease to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embraces of a president ceases to be a dollar. To determine the right moment, the critical point where quantity changes to quality is one of the most important and difficult tasks in all spheres of knowledge, including sociology.


---Leon Trostsky
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:39:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically, you have to state that the logical principles are self-evident. Unfortunately, many now realise they are not only not self-evident, but have some very large holes (the law of excluded middle, for example, is the biggest offender, due to negation is failure counterplan)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:42:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:39:51 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Basically, you have to state that the logical principles are self-evident. Unfortunately, many now realise they are not only not self-evident, but have some very large holes (the law of excluded middle, for example, is the biggest offender, due to negation is failure counterplan)

Could you elaborate on the reasoning against the law of excluded middle for me? It looks unfamiliar and thus interesting. But on the other stuff I agree. Even if we did say logic was self-evidence, we'd have a problem with justification anyways but that might just be do to my skeptical epistemology unrelated to this.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:44:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:42:20 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:39:51 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Basically, you have to state that the logical principles are self-evident. Unfortunately, many now realise they are not only not self-evident, but have some very large holes (the law of excluded middle, for example, is the biggest offender, due to negation is failure counterplan)

Could you elaborate on the reasoning against the law of excluded middle for me? It looks unfamiliar and thus interesting. But on the other stuff I agree. Even if we did say logic was self-evidence, we'd have a problem with justification anyways but that might just be do to my skeptical epistemology unrelated to this.

1) Absurdism ftw

2) "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when one knows a train is coming". One should not deduce it is safe to cross the tracks if one doesn't know a train is coming. (My personal contribution to wikipedia). There's some useful facts when you look at the criticism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:45:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd just like to say that self-evident truths are still valuable, and in fact necessary. It's just one of the most awkward things to ever have.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:55:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:45:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'd just like to say that self-evident truths are still valuable, and in fact necessary. It's just one of the most awkward things to ever have.

They go against our base desire to justify our reasoning.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:24:33 AM, socialpinko wrote:
This goes back to the whole pragmatic adoption of principles in order to function point that Kinesis made. The problem is that pragmatism is utterly incoherent. Some underlying principle or value will always need to be present in evaluating anything. This usually applies to ethics but I think it makes sense in the context of epistemology too. If one doesn't have any underlying value, then how does one decide when something has worked? This is my thoughts towards that. If I'm not going to adopt any rational standard on which to measure claims and evidence against then how do I evaluate anything at all?

I'm not exactly appealing to pragmatism. I'm just saying that humans are wired to accept certain axiomatic claims as self evident, so we have no choice but to accept them. If in reality those claims aren't actually an accurate reflection of reality...well, oh dear, but we don't have a choice in any case.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:47:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: to ask what is the justification of logic is to ask what is the logic of logic.
Answer Logic.
Its not circular like if you ask what is what is the jusificatoin of the box.
This would mean what is the logic of the box.? and of course we can break it down further into smaller bit, with logica of course..

Its a priory, that is a part of your mental frame work whether you like it or not.

you can't even ask a question which doesn't already suppose it..
We are always asking what is the P to he Q aka ?->Q
that is what is the sufficient condition???

OR what is the necessary condition? what is the Q to the P P->?

The universe is 1 (U) ->(infinity)1p)
all things that exist (absolute universe) which has an infinte amount of particlur 1's

1 g = is the general of a catagory of particular ones.,

Even if you have 3 things you have 1 set of 3.

even emotions can be expresses with vector math. This is used for artificial intellegence. why does it work Because its formulas of our mind.
That is they are Universal. laws.

Contradiction is really just 1-1=0
That is why its false . I am useing mathmatical symbols that have the exact meaning in logic because the are the same.

Predication is like multiplication. The car is red -> red car
but there is certain order. you cant say the red is the car.
Its a irrational predicate order.

It has to do with the study or mind entities.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:49:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I sh!t on Leon Trostsky
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:58:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:22:14 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:24:33 AM, socialpinko wrote:
This goes back to the whole pragmatic adoption of principles in order to function point that Kinesis made. The problem is that pragmatism is utterly incoherent. Some underlying principle or value will always need to be present in evaluating anything. This usually applies to ethics but I think it makes sense in the context of epistemology too. If one doesn't have any underlying value, then how does one decide when something has worked? This is my thoughts towards that. If I'm not going to adopt any rational standard on which to measure claims and evidence against then how do I evaluate anything at all?

I'm not exactly appealing to pragmatism. I'm just saying that humans are wired to accept certain axiomatic claims as self evident, so we have no choice but to accept them. If in reality those claims aren't actually an accurate reflection of reality...well, oh dear, but we don't have a choice in any case.

We are also wired to be disgusted at rotting flesh and pain. I don't think the emotive truths, or intuitive truths, have any more reason to be believed than the opposite. Also, we still have no reason to accept these truths objectively, only that we ad populum accept them (many through history have rejected them).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:01:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:58:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:22:14 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:24:33 AM, socialpinko wrote:
This goes back to the whole pragmatic adoption of principles in order to function point that Kinesis made. The problem is that pragmatism is utterly incoherent. Some underlying principle or value will always need to be present in evaluating anything. This usually applies to ethics but I think it makes sense in the context of epistemology too. If one doesn't have any underlying value, then how does one decide when something has worked? This is my thoughts towards that. If I'm not going to adopt any rational standard on which to measure claims and evidence against then how do I evaluate anything at all?

I'm not exactly appealing to pragmatism. I'm just saying that humans are wired to accept certain axiomatic claims as self evident, so we have no choice but to accept them. If in reality those claims aren't actually an accurate reflection of reality...well, oh dear, but we don't have a choice in any case.

We are also wired to be disgusted at rotting flesh and pain. I don't think the emotive truths, or intuitive truths, have any more reason to be believed than the opposite. Also, we still have no reason to accept these truths objectively, only that we ad populum accept them (many through history have rejected them).

That's where his point about two levels comes in. We can't objectively justify anything really but that doesn't mean we stop acting in the world. We're just basically ignorant of those concepts when we go along our lives. Of course I agree that doesn't make the matter any less important and doesn't make our logical faculties any more reliable or true.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Cognito is Iron clad!.. . we have just confused our self out of existence with ;langauge games; Its easy consiousness is itself. Its not an inference or a tautology. Its prelinguistical, and necessry by any perception. Consciousness is only of something, And object of mind and the observer. Language has no effect on your existence, because that must be true first before you can even learn language. And you are born with a priory logic whether you like it or not. Descartes tries to get rid or it, with logic, but then he says other this with logical . he is suppose be getting rid of all his, beliefs but he cheats because he is not warrented to suppose a evil demon. He is just doing that to make it have to rely on God. (like every other theologins) Dreaming. You have to had been awake to know the difference of the possibities so you certainly could not have always been dreaming.

It IS. and thus from with in you consiousness which is self evidence, you can analy
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:25:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:01:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
That's where his point about two levels comes in. We can't objectively justify anything really but that doesn't mean we stop acting in the world. We're just basically ignorant of those concepts when we go along our lives. Of course I agree that doesn't make the matter any less important and doesn't make our logical faculties any more reliable or true.

Exactly. In daily life, when I'm buying groceries or whatever, I don't worry about whether the cabbage I'm buying or the girl I'm hitting on can both exist and not exist at the same time, whether the world popped into existence five minutes ago or whether everyone else are just mindless zombies who act as though they're conscious. I just assume all those things without argument because that's the way my psychology is set up. Oh, I can worry about those things in an abstract intellectual way, but at the end of the day I just fundamentally believe all kinds of unprovable propositions, and there's no way to get around that.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People are fools because they look at logic as a set of rules to be obeyed in order to be "logically sound."

The wise know that logic is the science of intellectual integrity, that is the spirit behind the law, and it takes precedence over the law itself.

Those who are dishonest with themselves are illogical.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DanteAlighieri
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, what do you take to be "logic?" There are many different kinds of logics: propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, etc. There are even logics that lack binary truth-value operators like ternary logics or even fuzzy logics.

Two of the most important advances in the field of mathematics and logic came from Godel's incompleteness theorem and Tarski's indefinability theorem. Godel's incompleteness theorem showed that no sufficiently strong formal system can be both complete (that is, all of its axioms and theorems are provable) and consistent (not contradictory) at the same time. Tarski's indefinability theorem showed that for any sufficiently strong formal system, the truth predicate itself could not be defined.

So for any logic strong enough to express claims that we care about, we cannot even completely define a truth predicate nor can it be complete.

Another radical idea is to reject the law of noncontradiction for paraconsistent logics. Some people think the LNC is self-proving - denying it means accepting it, since if you accept that LNC is false, then you must accept LNC & ~LNC, but this only holds if you allow disjunction introduction or the like. Paraconsistent logics remove this and allow for inconsistent systems to be formalized.

Logic is nowhere near as settled as we would like it to be.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 4:31:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question? For instance, say I make an argument against the law of non-contradiction, how would one even refute it? One could say I'm assuming the law of non-contradiction in my argument but one either has to assume the conclusion in the premise (that contradictions cannot be true) or one has to relate to some higher order principle which is just subject to the same contention as before.

Not all logical fallacies are the same. Some indicate that the argument is logically inconsistent, while others indicate that the argument is inherently weak. Take, for example, the law of contradiction weighed against the fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

The law of contradiction states that if one were to contradict oneself during an argument, the argument can be considered invalid. This essentially points out that the argument is logically inconsistent. This isn't an appeal to an authority, because "authority" is not what makes things true. It's their actual state, and the actuality of the statement describing that state, which determines whether a statement is true. Accordingly, it's less an authority, and more an inherent characteristic.

For example, something cannot be, for all intents and purposes, black only, and also, for all intents and purposes, white only. That is fact -- it is a property of nature. It does not require some sort of authority to confirm it's actuality.

Of course, one could say "what about things that are both black and white?" Naturally, my answer would be: then it is neither black, nor white, now it is? It's both black and white.

In this way, to make a statement that is a contradiction is essentially fallacious. That differs from an appeal to authority (the logical fallacy that your OP is presenting), because an appeal to authority does not necessarily indicate that the argument is outright fallacious, but rather, fairly weak.

In other words, although confirmation by an authority makes something more likely true, it does not prove unequivocally that it is true.

This example serves two purposes. First, it illustrates how an argument can be defeated without being disproven by simply presenting a stronger argument, which is something your OP doesn't consider.

Moreover, it also indicates why your argument isn't necessarily invalid, but it's not strong. Accordingly, a strong and consistent argument can satisfactorily disprove it. For that, I posit the argument I presented here.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 4:31:07 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question? For instance, say I make an argument against the law of non-contradiction, how would one even refute it? One could say I'm assuming the law of non-contradiction in my argument but one either has to assume the conclusion in the premise (that contradictions cannot be true) or one has to relate to some higher order principle which is just subject to the same contention as before.

Not all logical fallacies are the same. Some indicate that the argument is logically inconsistent, while others indicate that the argument is inherently weak. Take, for example, the law of contradiction weighed against the fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

The law of contradiction states that if one were to contradict oneself during an argument, the argument can be considered invalid. This essentially points out that the argument is logically inconsistent. This isn't an appeal to an authority, because "authority" is not what makes things true. It's their actual state, and the actuality of the statement describing that state, which determines whether a statement is true. Accordingly, it's less an authority, and more an inherent characteristic.

For example, something cannot be, for all intents and purposes, black only, and also, for all intents and purposes, white only. That is fact -- it is a property of nature. It does not require some sort of authority to confirm it's actuality.

Of course, one could say "what about things that are both black and white?" Naturally, my answer would be: then it is neither black, nor white, now it is? It's both black and white.

In this way, to make a statement that is a contradiction is essentially fallacious. That differs from an appeal to authority (the logical fallacy that your OP is presenting), because an appeal to authority does not necessarily indicate that the argument is outright fallacious, but rather, fairly weak.

In other words, although confirmation by an authority makes something more likely true, it does not prove unequivocally that it is true.

This example serves two purposes. First, it illustrates how an argument can be defeated without being disproven by simply presenting a stronger argument, which is something your OP doesn't consider.

Moreover, it also indicates why your argument isn't necessarily invalid, but it's not strong. Accordingly, a strong and consistent argument can satisfactorily disprove it. For that, I posit the argument I presented here.

None of this actually addressed my point of self-reference. It just assumed logic from the outset.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:14:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:01:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:

None of this actually addressed my point of self-reference. It just assumed logic from the outset.

What point of self-reference?

You asked a single question -- whether logic can be justified without assumption or appeal to authority. My answer is that logic is self-verifiable. However, instead of just making that statement, I quantified it. We understand logic to be correct, because it leads to correct inferences. It is about as verifiable as the nose on your face.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:14:14 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:01:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:

None of this actually addressed my point of self-reference. It just assumed logic from the outset.

What point of self-reference?

You asked a single question -- whether logic can be justified without assumption or appeal to authority. My answer is that logic is self-verifiable. However, instead of just making that statement, I quantified it. We understand logic to be correct, because it leads to correct inferences. It is about as verifiable as the nose on your face.

You misunderstand my original post. The whole point was that logic doesn't appear to be justifiable without self reference. Meaning that the only way you can really argue for the validity of it is to employ non-contradiction i.e. denying logic while using it to argue is contradictory. Yeah I can admit that but the argument is self defeating since the defender of logic essentially employs his conclusion as a premise in his argument.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:39:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question? For instance, say I make an argument against the law of non-contradiction, how would one even refute it? One could say I'm assuming the law of non-contradiction in my argument but one either has to assume the conclusion in the premise (that contradictions cannot be true) or one has to relate to some higher order principle which is just subject to the same contention as before.

See foundationalism. Such truths are properly basic & impose their reality upon us. In other words, they're self-evident.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:45:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:39:33 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:43:16 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been thinking, can logic in general (for instance law of contradiction, excluded middle, and identity) be justified without self reference or begging the question? For instance, say I make an argument against the law of non-contradiction, how would one even refute it? One could say I'm assuming the law of non-contradiction in my argument but one either has to assume the conclusion in the premise (that contradictions cannot be true) or one has to relate to some higher order principle which is just subject to the same contention as before.

See foundationalism. Such truths are properly basic & impose their reality upon us. In other words, they're self-evident.

Self evidence is an awkward concept as someone pointed out earlier. When we're speaking of justification, they'res no possible way we can actually prove any of that simply because not everyone sees the same things as self-evident. A lot of people see God's existence as self-evidence. A lot of people see it as not though, so how do you actually resolve the issue? You can't because in order to solve it you'd have to refer back to logical laws which themselves are vulnerable to the same problem.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.