Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is "Logic"?

Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many would agree that a debate must be on the basis of logic.
But I have come to question the definition of Logic as people can interpret differently.
Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?
Is Logic a personal thinking process that varies for different people, and there are no "correct" logic, only the more "reasonable" and "convincing" logic?
Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?
Let's share thoughts :)
This questions literally EVERYTHING, as our thinking process is based on logic, even we haven't decided on a exact definition... It is a paradoxical thing, and I thought long and hard about it, only to gain a weighty, smelly, and very spiky headache...
Thanks
The Random Guy
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:10:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Many would agree that a debate must be on the basis of logic.
But I have come to question the definition of Logic as people can interpret differently.
Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?
Is Logic a personal thinking process that varies for different people, and there are no "correct" logic, only the more "reasonable" and "convincing" logic?
Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?
Let's share thoughts :)
This questions literally EVERYTHING, as our thinking process is based on logic, even we haven't decided on a exact definition... It is a paradoxical thing, and I thought long and hard about it, only to gain a weighty, smelly, and very spiky headache...
Thanks
The Random Guy

Logic's only relevance is it makes sense.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

If the requirement for logic is to be free from bias, then, there's no such thing as logic, as far as we know. Researchers at leading universities have demonstrated, through surveys, 100% of participants are bias. This would mean there is no objectivity, as least as far as we're concerned.

Just a side note, the very people who considered themselves fair-handed and open-minded were found to have had a greater bias.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:05:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

If the requirement for logic is to be free from bias, then, there's no such thing as logic, as far as we know.

You're confusing two things. There's first the definition of logic and then there's whether people can be logical.

There is such a thing as logic (as I have defined earlier), but people can indeed fail to be logical because of their biases.

It is possible to be biased (as in having a preference for one side of the conflict; wanting one side of the conflict to win more than the other), be aware of that bias and consciously not let it get in the way of your logical reasoning also, so even a biased mind can reach logical conclusions.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:50:07 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:05:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

If the requirement for logic is to be free from bias, then, there's no such thing as logic, as far as we know.

You're confusing two things. There's first the definition of logic and then there's whether people can be logical.

I'm not confusing anything; even the definition of logic is relative to the meaning we give it. If something makes sense to us, it's because it makes sense to us. This doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or all sentient beings in the Universe. Bias follows from the belief: in that it makes sense to you, it must make sense to everyone one, else; in other words, the belief your perspective is absolute.


There is such a thing as logic (as I have defined earlier), but people can indeed fail to be logical because of their biases.

It is possible to be biased (as in having a preference for one side of the conflict; wanting one side of the conflict to win more than the other), be aware of that bias and consciously not let it get in the way of your logical reasoning also, so even a biased mind can reach logical conclusions.

The conflict, itself, is proof positive partiality exists; and, as long as the conflict exists, partiality will continue to exist. You can't say you have absolute, or objective, knowledge, as long as there is partiality, or subjectivity. Impartiality is not relative to a single perspective, but to all perspectives.

Of course, a bias mind can reach logical conclusions, logical to itself. Something makes sense, in as much as it makes sense to you.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 8:09:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 2:33:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not confusing anything; even the definition of logic is relative to the meaning we give it.

Well, yes, that's all a definition is, per definition. A meaning we give a word. I don't understand how this is relevant or contradicts what I've said.

If something makes sense to us, it's because it makes sense to us. This doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or all sentient beings in the Universe. Bias follows from the belief: in that it makes sense to you, it must make sense to everyone one, else; in other words, the belief your perspective is absolute.

I am not seeing how this relates to or contradicts my points either...

It is possible to be biased (as in having a preference for one side of the conflict; wanting one side of the conflict to win more than the other), be aware of that bias and consciously not let it get in the way of your logical reasoning also, so even a biased mind can reach logical conclusions.

The conflict, itself, is proof positive partiality exists;

What is "positive partiality"?

and, as long as the conflict exists, partiality will continue to exist. You can't say you have absolute, or objective, knowledge, as long as there is partiality, or subjectivity. Impartiality is not relative to a single perspective, but to all perspectives.

Of course, a bias mind can reach logical conclusions, logical to itself. Something makes sense, in as much as it makes sense to you.

Okay, but we agree that logic does exist if "something logical" is defined as "A conclusion based on a premise that anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to if they analyzing the facts without significant biases"?

People always have biases towards certain things, but the biases won't necessarily pertain to the facts being analyzed, so it is possible to not be biased on a specific topic. Not many will have a bias that will hinder their correct logical calculation of the math problem 5 + 2 for instance, so logic, as defined the way I did, can exist, right? (It's a response to your statement "there is no such thing as logic, as far as we know".)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 10:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 8:09:24 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:33:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not confusing anything; even the definition of logic is relative to the meaning we give it.

Well, yes, that's all a definition is, per definition. A meaning we give a word. I don't understand how this is relevant or contradicts what I've said.

Because, meaning is relative to us.


If something makes sense to us, it's because it makes sense to us. This doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or all sentient beings in the Universe. Bias follows from the belief: in that it makes sense to you, it must make sense to everyone one, else; in other words, the belief your perspective is absolute.

I am not seeing how this relates to or contradicts my points either...

Because, meaning is relative, to you; or in other words, it's partial, to you.


It is possible to be biased (as in having a preference for one side of the conflict; wanting one side of the conflict to win more than the other), be aware of that bias and consciously not let it get in the way of your logical reasoning also, so even a biased mind can reach logical conclusions.

The conflict, itself, is proof positive partiality exists;

What is "positive partiality"?

Sorry. Maybe I should have put a comma, after positive.


and, as long as the conflict exists, partiality will continue to exist. You can't say you have absolute, or objective, knowledge, as long as there is partiality, or subjectivity. Impartiality is not relative to a single perspective, but to all perspectives.

Of course, a bias mind can reach logical conclusions, logical to itself. Something makes sense, in as much as it makes sense to you.

Okay, but we agree that logic does exist if "something logical" is defined as "A conclusion based on a premise that anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to if they analyzing the facts without significant biases"?

It's even simpler than that: something is logical, in as much as it makes sense.


People always have biases towards certain things, but the biases won't necessarily pertain to the facts being analyzed, so it is possible to not be biased on a specific topic.

People are always bias, in everything. As long as knowledge is relative to one's own perspective, one's understanding will be partial; and, as long as one's understanding is partial, there is bias.

Not many will have a bias that will hinder their correct logical calculation of the math problem 5 + 2 for instance, so logic, as defined the way I did, can exist, right? (It's a response to your statement "there is no such thing as logic, as far as we know".)

The mathematical sentence is logical, in as much as it makes sense; however, being it does not make sense to sentient beings, universally, it does not make absolute sense; the logic is held relatively, or subjectively, not universally; therefore, the logic is relative, or partial, to those in which it makes sense; and, being partial, it is bias.

I never said there is no such thing as logic; I said if being unbias is a requirement for logic to exist, then, as far as we know, logic doesn't exist.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:48:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logica est scientia de bona intellegans
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:50:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 10:25:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/28/2014 8:09:24 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:33:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not confusing anything; even the definition of logic is relative to the meaning we give it.

Well, yes, that's all a definition is, per definition. A meaning we give a word. I don't understand how this is relevant or contradicts what I've said.

Because, meaning is relative to us.

I understand that it's relative to us, but why do you feel the need to point that out? I haven't said the opposite. I want to make sure I'm not being misunderstood.

If we can all agree on a defintion of logic - and we can - it's relativity is no longer an issue.

Okay, but we agree that logic does exist if "something logical" is defined as "A conclusion based on a premise that anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to if they analyzing the facts without significant biases"?

It's even simpler than that: something is logical, in as much as it makes sense.

"It makes sense" and "it's logical" mean the exact same thing, so that's a circular definition that can't be of any use.

People are always bias, in everything. As long as knowledge is relative to one's own perspective, one's understanding will be partial; and, as long as one's understanding is partial, there is bias.

But these biases are not significant if we all have them. Everything is relative to our own perspective, so everyone has that bias.
If we all have the same biases with regards to a specific subject and the same cognitive ability, logic can exist.

Significant biases are the biases that will get in the way of reaching a common conclusion, because they cause a person to have premises in their reasoning that someone without their bias wouldn't have. But if we all have the same premises, all people with the needed intellectual level to understand them should reach the same conclusion.

Not many will have a bias that will hinder their correct logical calculation of the math problem 5 + 2 for instance, so logic, as defined the way I did, can exist, right? (It's a response to your statement "there is no such thing as logic, as far as we know".)

The mathematical sentence is logical, in as much as it makes sense; however, being it does not make sense to sentient beings, universally, it does not make absolute sense; the logic is held relatively, or subjectively, not universally;

Math does universally make sense to sentient beings (with the same intellectual level). 6+2 equals 8 in America and Japan and Brazil and everywhere else.

I never said there is no such thing as logic; I said if being unbias is a requirement for logic to exist, then, as far as we know, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, but do you agree that logic does exist if it doesn't require a total absence of bias, but only an absence of significant biases
In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:57:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

Thanks for the reply!
Answering a question brings more question :)
If a conclusion is "logical" when others come to the same conclusion, then there is a set of processes we all go through, right? Then that set of processes, which is fixed, is a natural order, born into us, and no matter the circumstances we still use the same process?
For the second question, I ask this because I talked to a very well-articulated man(or woman) in regards to God. He claims that a Christian would require a tiny dose of "faith" to be completely convinced, and also that to come to an absolute conclusion, they might often be forced to take a tiny leap of faith. Very very small, but still a leap of faith. And pure faith, I would consider, is not a rational thing, it is sentimental, and not calculated, as it requires no evidence and support. A logic, involving faith, however small the portion, is a questionable logic, therefore no logic at all?
So "logically" speaking, God cannot exist?
I may have drifted onto another subject a little, but you get the context. Without having even settle the definition of "logic", a debate involving God is pretty much impossible and fruitless.
Thanks
The Random Guy
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:50:15 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 10:25:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/28/2014 8:09:24 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:33:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not confusing anything; even the definition of logic is relative to the meaning we give it.

Well, yes, that's all a definition is, per definition. A meaning we give a word. I don't understand how this is relevant or contradicts what I've said.

Because, meaning is relative to us.

I understand that it's relative to us, but why do you feel the need to point that out? I haven't said the opposite. I want to make sure I'm not being misunderstood.

If we can all agree on a defintion of logic - and we can - it's relativity is no longer an issue.

I've had many, many arguments, concerning the meaning of logic. So, no; I don't think we all agree.


Okay, but we agree that logic does exist if "something logical" is defined as "A conclusion based on a premise that anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to if they analyzing the facts without significant biases"?

It's even simpler than that: something is logical, in as much as it makes sense.

"It makes sense" and "it's logical" mean the exact same thing, so that's a circular definition that can't be of any use.

People are always bias, in everything. As long as knowledge is relative to one's own perspective, one's understanding will be partial; and, as long as one's understanding is partial, there is bias.

But these biases are not significant if we all have them. Everything is relative to our own perspective, so everyone has that bias.
If we all have the same biases with regards to a specific subject and the same cognitive ability, logic can exist.

Our biases are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called biases. Our perspectives are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called perspectives. If we all had the same cognitive ability, we would have no biases or perspectives.


Significant biases are the biases that will get in the way of reaching a common conclusion, because they cause a person to have premises in their reasoning that someone without their bias wouldn't have. But if we all have the same premises, all people with the needed intellectual level to understand them should reach the same conclusion.

A bias is a bias, and all biases get in the way of drawing a common conclusion. The problem I see with this logic is your speaking of having a universal consensus, with only a select group of sentient beings; in other words, you're trying to say something is absolute, if it meets these conditions: same premise and same intelligence. Something is absolute, or universal, if it's absolute, or universal. If a select group of people that meet certain criteria is needed, in the creation of logic, then, logic is relative, or partial, to a select group of people who meet certain criteria.


Not many will have a bias that will hinder their correct logical calculation of the math problem 5 + 2 for instance, so logic, as defined the way I did, can exist, right? (It's a response to your statement "there is no such thing as logic, as far as we know".)

The mathematical sentence is logical, in as much as it makes sense; however, being it does not make sense to sentient beings, universally, it does not make absolute sense; the logic is held relatively, or subjectively, not universally;

Math does universally make sense to sentient beings (with the same intellectual level). 6+2 equals 8 in America and Japan and Brazil and everywhere else.

Do you even hear that which your saying? Math makes sense, universally, on the condition, all sentient beings have equal intelligence. Universals, and absolutes, don't have conditions. Math does not make sense, universally; because, not all sentient beings have equal intelligence.


I never said there is no such thing as logic; I said if being unbias is a requirement for logic to exist, then, as far as we know, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, but do you agree that logic does exist if it doesn't require a total absence of bias, but only an absence of significant biases

Logic exists, in as much as it makes sense.

In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?

No. Because, universally, sentient beings do not have equal intelligence; if equal intelligence were a prerequisite for logic, then, logic doesn't exist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 11:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:57:52 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

Thanks for the reply!
Answering a question brings more question :)
If a conclusion is "logical" when others come to the same conclusion, then there is a set of processes we all go through, right? Then that set of processes, which is fixed, is a natural order, born into us, and no matter the circumstances we still use the same process?

Even though I believe we can reach a consensus, on many things, I don't believe the process is implicit. All too often, we travel many different paths, to reach the same or similar conclusions. To deduce we experience the same mental processes is to assert our minds develop in the same way, and I find that a little hard to swallow, considering the innumerable disagreements among us.

For the second question, I ask this because I talked to a very well-articulated man(or woman) in regards to God. He claims that a Christian would require a tiny dose of "faith" to be completely convinced, and also that to come to an absolute conclusion, they might often be forced to take a tiny leap of faith. Very very small, but still a leap of faith. And pure faith, I would consider, is not a rational thing, it is sentimental, and not calculated, as it requires no evidence and support. A logic, involving faith, however small the portion, is a questionable logic, therefore no logic at all?

I'm sorry, but, for me, faith, or trust, is not built on ignorance, yet knowledge. The greater my understanding of the quality or craftsmanship of a product, the greater my faith in its ability to perform. It's ignorance that instills doubt. As a white boy, growing up in the Deep South, my father was a segregationist; he was a strong believer, in the Jim Crow laws. I went to a predominantly white school, an all white church, and my parents had no black friends; I grew up fearing black people, thinking all black people were criminals; when I got older and started working with black people, I realized they were a lot like me; over time, my distrust was replaced with trust; the more I got to know black people, on an individual basis, the more trustworthy I found them to be. You can't have faith, in that which you don't know.

So "logically" speaking, God cannot exist?

If God doesn't make sense, God doesn't make sense; however, to some, God makes a lot of sense; in fact, they believe life doesn't make sense, without God. You may say God doesn't make sense, to you; however, in doing so, the statement is relative, to you. Something is logical, in as much as it makes sense; you can say something doesn't make sense, to you; but, you can't speak, for someone else.

I may have drifted onto another subject a little, but you get the context. Without having even settle the definition of "logic", a debate involving God is pretty much impossible and fruitless.
Thanks
The Random Guy
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:15:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:07:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If we can all agree on a defintion of logic - and we can - it's relativity is no longer an issue.

I've had many, many arguments, concerning the meaning of logic. So, no; I don't think we all agree.

You kept stressing that "the definition of logic is relative to us" and apparently that fact went in the way of us determining whether logic exists. Before determining whether it exists, we have to determine what "it" is. So we can agree on a definition of logic for the sake of our debate and then debate whether, going by that specific definition we just chose, logic exists or not.

But these biases are not significant if we all have them. Everything is relative to our own perspective, so everyone has that bias.
If we all have the same biases with regards to a specific subject and the same cognitive ability, logic can exist.

Our biases are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called biases.

What has the fact that they're called "biases" have to do with whether everyone has them? That makes no sense to me.

A "bias" is an inclination to think a certain way, make certain associations (that aren't necessarily warranted). We all share the condition of being human, and humans are wired a certain way, which means that we all share a certain wiring that makes us think in similar ways. It's a bias in the sense that some alien species with different wiring would maybe have different inclinations in the way they think.

Our perspectives are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called perspectives. If we all had the same cognitive ability, we would have no biases or perspectives.

Again, I don't see what the fact that they're called "perspectives" has to do with whether we have the same perspectives.

I didn't say that our perspectives were the same. My point was that we all analyse things from a certain perspective and our understandings are limited by that perspective. That means we can lay these perspectives side by side during a debate and weed out the flaws in each other's reasoning to come closer to a perfectly logical reasoning. So the different perspectives aren't necessarily an obstacle to being logical.

Significant biases are the biases that will get in the way of reaching a common conclusion, because they cause a person to have premises in their reasoning that someone without their bias wouldn't have. But if we all have the same premises, all people with the needed intellectual level to understand them should reach the same conclusion.

A bias is a bias,

Something is absolute, or universal, if it's absolute, or universal.

Can you please avoid such circular statements? Because they don't bring anything meaningful to the debate.

and all biases get in the way of drawing a common conclusion.

No. If two people discussing something share the same biases, there's absolutely no reason why their biases would get in their way of reaching the same conclusion between the both of them (because they would have the exact same premises). If you think there is a reason, the burden of proof is on you.

The problem I see with this logic is your speaking of having a universal consensus, with only a select group of sentient beings; in other words, you're trying to say something is absolute, if it meets these conditions: same premise and same intelligence. If a select group of people that meet certain criteria is needed, in the creation of logic, then, logic is relative, or partial, to a select group of people who meet certain criteria.

We have a semantic problem: the definition of "universal" I was using was "found across the universe in a certain group of people".

People with equal intelligence and no significant biases can be found all across the globe, so it's not a contradition. It is relative to that group.

Math does universally make sense to sentient beings (with the same intellectual level). 6+2 equals 8 in America and Japan and Brazil and everywhere else.

Do you even hear that which your saying? Math makes sense, universally, on the condition, all sentient beings have equal intelligence.

I do hear what I'm saying and there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying If you define "universal" the way I did.

I never said there is no such thing as logic; I said if being unbias is a requirement for logic to exist, then, as far as we know, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, but do you agree that logic does exist if it doesn't require a total absence of bias, but only an absence of significant biases

Logic exists, in as much as it makes sense.

That's not an answer to my question.

And, like I said, that statement is circular, it doesn't mean anything, I don't understand why you repeated it. If you're going to repeat it, you should at least explain further what your point is in saying that.

In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?

No. Because, universally, sentient beings do not have equal intelligence; if equal intelligence were a prerequisite for logic, then, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, let's cast "universal" aside, do you agree that logic is: "the system of thought that causes people with an equal intellectual level to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." ?
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:37:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 11:14:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:57:52 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

Thanks for the reply!
Answering a question brings more question :)
If a conclusion is "logical" when others come to the same conclusion, then there is a set of processes we all go through, right? Then that set of processes, which is fixed, is a natural order, born into us, and no matter the circumstances we still use the same process?

Even though I believe we can reach a consensus, on many things, I don't believe the process is implicit. All too often, we travel many different paths, to reach the same or similar conclusions. To deduce we experience the same mental processes is to assert our minds develop in the same way, and I find that a little hard to swallow, considering the innumerable disagreements among us.

For the second question, I ask this because I talked to a very well-articulated man(or woman) in regards to God. He claims that a Christian would require a tiny dose of "faith" to be completely convinced, and also that to come to an absolute conclusion, they might often be forced to take a tiny leap of faith. Very very small, but still a leap of faith. And pure faith, I would consider, is not a rational thing, it is sentimental, and not calculated, as it requires no evidence and support. A logic, involving faith, however small the portion, is a questionable logic, therefore no logic at all?

I'm sorry, but, for me, faith, or trust, is not built on ignorance, yet knowledge. The greater my understanding of the quality or craftsmanship of a product, the greater my faith in its ability to perform. It's ignorance that instills doubt. As a white boy, growing up in the Deep South, my father was a segregationist; he was a strong believer, in the Jim Crow laws. I went to a predominantly white school, an all white church, and my parents had no black friends; I grew up fearing black people, thinking all black people were criminals; when I got older and started working with black people, I realized they were a lot like me; over time, my distrust was replaced with trust; the more I got to know black people, on an individual basis, the more trustworthy I found them to be. You can't have faith, in that which you don't know.

So "logically" speaking, God cannot exist?

If God doesn't make sense, God doesn't make sense; however, to some, God makes a lot of sense; in fact, they believe life doesn't make sense, without God. You may say God doesn't make sense, to you; however, in doing so, the statement is relative, to you. Something is logical, in as much as it makes sense; you can say something doesn't make sense, to you; but, you can't speak, for someone else.

I may have drifted onto another subject a little, but you get the context. Without having even settle the definition of "logic", a debate involving God is pretty much impossible and fruitless.
Thanks
The Random Guy

I understand where you're standing.
It is very true what you say about having different pathways, but I was thinking even more basic than that... Such as we would have thoughts that run generally like: This happened, therefore...
We look at an evidence or anything, and we form some kind of idea about it. Most people's brains, though they come to the conclusion in different processes, is similar, just like how a computer can come up with the same answer in different programs, but these programs are written with the same two digit code?
I just think that there's got to be some kind of fundamental basis for thought. I would say that is logic, because otherwise a person that does not even have that basis could never be understood...

I hear you about faith being built on knowledge. That is very true, and although I do not agree, I'd say I never will be convinced of your ideas, nor would you mine, simply because there is a fundamental difference in those two values. Knowledge is perceived differently from believers to non-believers. Some regard the Bible as knowledge from God, or proof of some kind. But that does not justify as knowledge for non-believers. Wouldn't you agree that believers and non-believers see things very differently?

And for the last point you are making, you are absolutely right. I can't speak for others, nor can they speak for me. It takes a lot of thought, faith(or the lack of it) and courage to leap from one end of the fence to the other.
Thanks
The Random Guy
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:59:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:15:17 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:07:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If we can all agree on a defintion of logic - and we can - it's relativity is no longer an issue.

I've had many, many arguments, concerning the meaning of logic. So, no; I don't think we all agree.

You kept stressing that "the definition of logic is relative to us" and apparently that fact went in the way of us determining whether logic exists. Before determining whether it exists, we have to determine what "it" is. So we can agree on a definition of logic for the sake of our debate and then debate whether, going by that specific definition we just chose, logic exists or not.

For me, logic is basically equivalent to meaning, something that makes sense. There's no attempt, on my part, to complicate it. For me, logic is as primal as thought.


But these biases are not significant if we all have them. Everything is relative to our own perspective, so everyone has that bias.
If we all have the same biases with regards to a specific subject and the same cognitive ability, logic can exist.

Our biases are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called biases.

What has the fact that they're called "biases" have to do with whether everyone has them? That makes no sense to me.

A "bias" is an inclination to think a certain way, make certain associations (that aren't necessarily warranted). We all share the condition of being human, and humans are wired a certain way, which means that we all share a certain wiring that makes us think in similar ways. It's a bias in the sense that some alien species with different wiring would maybe have different inclinations in the way they think.

Our perspectives are not the same; if they were, they wouldn't be called perspectives. If we all had the same cognitive ability, we would have no biases or perspectives.

Again, I don't see what the fact that they're called "perspectives" has to do with whether we have the same perspectives.

I didn't say that our perspectives were the same. My point was that we all analyse things from a certain perspective and our understandings are limited by that perspective. That means we can lay these perspectives side by side during a debate and weed out the flaws in each other's reasoning to come closer to a perfectly logical reasoning. So the different perspectives aren't necessarily an obstacle to being logical.

I never said bias, or perspective, was an obstacle to being logical; I've never once denied the existence of logic. Yet, I have said, time and time again, logic is relative to a system of thought. If we come to a consensus on that which is logical, that consensus is relative to us. It is not universal or objective or absolute; it, by definition, is partial to us, subjective, and relative to our understanding. Now, in as much as we agree, there may be no bias between us; but, that in no way indicates there is no bias in our system; it only implies, on a certain matter, we, alone, are in agreement.


Significant biases are the biases that will get in the way of reaching a common conclusion, because they cause a person to have premises in their reasoning that someone without their bias wouldn't have. But if we all have the same premises, all people with the needed intellectual level to understand them should reach the same conclusion.

A bias is a bias,

Something is absolute, or universal, if it's absolute, or universal.

Can you please avoid such circular statements? Because they don't bring anything meaningful to the debate.

and all biases get in the way of drawing a common conclusion.

No. If two people discussing something share the same biases, there's absolutely no reason why their biases would get in their way of reaching the same conclusion between the both of them (because they would have the exact same premises). If you think there is a reason, the burden of proof is on you.

The problem I see with this logic is your speaking of having a universal consensus, with only a select group of sentient beings; in other words, you're trying to say something is absolute, if it meets these conditions: same premise and same intelligence. If a select group of people that meet certain criteria is needed, in the creation of logic, then, logic is relative, or partial, to a select group of people who meet certain criteria.

We have a semantic problem: the definition of "universal" I was using was "found across the universe in a certain group of people".

Is that like saying Italians universally, or absolutely, enjoy spaghetti?


People with equal intelligence and no significant biases can be found all across the globe, so it's not a contradition. It is relative to that group.

So, all of these people should be able to take an exhaustive multidisciplinary test and score exactly alike, giving the exact same answers, for each of the problems. Correct?


Math does universally make sense to sentient beings (with the same intellectual level). 6+2 equals 8 in America and Japan and Brazil and everywhere else.

Do you even hear that which your saying? Math makes sense, universally, on the condition, all sentient beings have equal intelligence.

I do hear what I'm saying and there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying If you define "universal" the way I did.

I never said there is no such thing as logic; I said if being unbias is a requirement for logic to exist, then, as far as we know, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, but do you agree that logic does exist if it doesn't require a total absence of bias, but only an absence of significant biases

Logic exists, in as much as it makes sense.

That's not an answer to my question.

And, like I said, that statement is circular, it doesn't mean anything, I don't understand why you repeated it. If you're going to repeat it, you should at least explain further what your point is in saying that.

In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?

No. Because, universally, sentient beings do not have equal intelligence; if equal intelligence were a prerequisite for logic, then, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, let's cast "universal" aside, do you agree that logic is: "the system of thought that causes people with an equal intellectual level to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." ?

I don't know anyone of equal intelligence to anyone, else.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:46:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 7:37:27 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/30/2014 11:14:07 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:57:52 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:47:44 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Let's share thoughts :)

Sure!

Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?

This. I think logic is objective. A conclusion is "logical" if it follows its premise. It follows its premise if anyone on the same intellectual level has no choice but to come to the same conclusion just by analyzing the facts.

Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?

Yes. I don't see how it would make sense to say "logic is sentimental" because logic and sentiment have nothing to do with each other.

People have biases and feelings and faults, but logic is simply a system wherein conclusions following their premise. It can't possibly have biases and faults.

Thanks for the reply!
Answering a question brings more question :)
If a conclusion is "logical" when others come to the same conclusion, then there is a set of processes we all go through, right? Then that set of processes, which is fixed, is a natural order, born into us, and no matter the circumstances we still use the same process?

Even though I believe we can reach a consensus, on many things, I don't believe the process is implicit. All too often, we travel many different paths, to reach the same or similar conclusions. To deduce we experience the same mental processes is to assert our minds develop in the same way, and I find that a little hard to swallow, considering the innumerable disagreements among us.

For the second question, I ask this because I talked to a very well-articulated man(or woman) in regards to God. He claims that a Christian would require a tiny dose of "faith" to be completely convinced, and also that to come to an absolute conclusion, they might often be forced to take a tiny leap of faith. Very very small, but still a leap of faith. And pure faith, I would consider, is not a rational thing, it is sentimental, and not calculated, as it requires no evidence and support. A logic, involving faith, however small the portion, is a questionable logic, therefore no logic at all?

I'm sorry, but, for me, faith, or trust, is not built on ignorance, yet knowledge. The greater my understanding of the quality or craftsmanship of a product, the greater my faith in its ability to perform. It's ignorance that instills doubt. As a white boy, growing up in the Deep South, my father was a segregationist; he was a strong believer, in the Jim Crow laws. I went to a predominantly white school, an all white church, and my parents had no black friends; I grew up fearing black people, thinking all black people were criminals; when I got older and started working with black people, I realized they were a lot like me; over time, my distrust was replaced with trust; the more I got to know black people, on an individual basis, the more trustworthy I found them to be. You can't have faith, in that which you don't know.

So "logically" speaking, God cannot exist?

If God doesn't make sense, God doesn't make sense; however, to some, God makes a lot of sense; in fact, they believe life doesn't make sense, without God. You may say God doesn't make sense, to you; however, in doing so, the statement is relative, to you. Something is logical, in as much as it makes sense; you can say something doesn't make sense, to you; but, you can't speak, for someone else.

I may have drifted onto another subject a little, but you get the context. Without having even settle the definition of "logic", a debate involving God is pretty much impossible and fruitless.
Thanks
The Random Guy

I understand where you're standing.
It is very true what you say about having different pathways, but I was thinking even more basic than that... Such as we would have thoughts that run generally like: This happened, therefore...
We look at an evidence or anything, and we form some kind of idea about it. Most people's brains, though they come to the conclusion in different processes, is similar, just like how a computer can come up with the same answer in different programs, but these programs are written with the same two digit code?
I just think that there's got to be some kind of fundamental basis for thought. I would say that is logic, because otherwise a person that does not even have that basis could never be understood...

I agree, fundamentally, we are a lot alike, at least on the molecular level; and, on the atomic level we're exactly the same. Maybe our differences are superficial, but, nonetheless, they are very real.


I hear you about faith being built on knowledge. That is very true, and although I do not agree, I'd say I never will be convinced of your ideas, nor would you mine, simply because there is a fundamental difference in those two values. Knowledge is perceived differently from believers to non-believers. Some regard the Bible as knowledge from God, or proof of some kind. But that does not justify as knowledge for non-believers. Wouldn't you agree that believers and non-believers see things very differently?

I don't believe knowledge is perceived differently, only as it applies to theism versus atheism, but as it applies to separate sentient beings, altogether.

However, it's my opinion, that belief is based on belief; in other words, people believe things, because they see evidence's supporting that which they believe.

Nevertheless, I believe there are people who say they believe something, for no other reason but expediency.

It is not my place to judge another's motives, for his, or her, own profession.


And for the last point you are making, you are absolutely right. I can't speak for others, nor can they speak for me. It takes a lot of thought, faith(or the lack of it) and courage to leap from one end of the fence to the other.
Thanks
The Random Guy
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 2:59:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:15:17 AM, Questionner wrote:
You kept stressing that "the definition of logic is relative to us" and apparently that fact went in the way of us determining whether logic exists. Before determining whether it exists, we have to determine what "it" is. So we can agree on a definition of logic for the sake of our debate and then debate whether, going by that specific definition we just chose, logic exists or not.

For me, logic is basically equivalent to meaning, something that makes sense. There's no attempt, on my part, to complicate it. For me, logic is as primal as thought.

In the part of my post you quoted, I explained to you why we can agree on a definition of logic, contrary to what you said. You respond with "logic is something that makes sense". I'm not seeing how your response relates to what I said: What part of the quote are you contradicting/agreeing with by saying this, exactly? If there is no relation, can you please avoid quoting it in the first place, because that will have me look for links that aren't there and confuse me as a result.

Anyway, what does "making sense" mean, then? We don't know that either. I don't think anyone here is making an attempt to "complicate" it, we're just looking for an clear, absolute definition of "logic" and "making sense" is just as elusive as "logical", so that cannot be used to define logic, hence why I said that the statement "something is logical in as much as it makes sense" brings nothing meaningful to the debate.

I never said bias, or perspective, was an obstacle to being logical; I've never once denied the existence of logic.

Okay.

Yet, I have said, time and time again,[...] If we come to a consensus on that which is logical, that consensus is relative to us. It is not universal or objective or absolute; it, by definition, is partial to us, subjective, and relative to our understanding.

In case "come to a consensus on that which is logical"= "agreeing that a reasoning leads to a true conclusion", that is indeed relative to our own understanding (and I've never said it wasn't nor did I say that you said so), we may indeed disagree on whether a reasoning is logical or not based on our differences in understanding (just like people can disagree on whether a mathematical equation is correct or not), but if it is logical, it is true independent of us; it is objectively true.

logic is relative to a system of thought.

I think our biggest discord lies here. Logic isn't just "relative to" a system of thought, it is a system of thought. There is a systematic way you have to think in order to be logical. Factual arguments linked in a way that follows this system of thought perfectly form a reasoning that leads to the truth.

For example, If the table surface is empty and I lay one apple on it, then I lay another one, then it's a logical fact that I've put two apples on it (1+1=2). It's not "subjective" or "relative to me", it's the only truth, from what we know, and logic is the system of thought that caused me to deduce that truth.

People naturally follow that system of thought when they aren't led astray by biases or a lack of understanding, hence why I took people's thoughts as a basis for my definition of "logic".

Now, in as much as we agree, there may be no bias between us; but, that in no way indicates there is no bias in our system; it only implies, on a certain matter, we, alone, are in agreement.

Yes, that is exactly why I made a distinction between biases that are "significant" and those that aren't because we share them.

The problem I see with this logic is your speaking of having a universal consensus, with only a select group of sentient beings; in other words, you're trying to say something is absolute, if it meets these conditions: same premise and same intelligence. If a select group of people that meet certain criteria is needed, in the creation of logic, then, logic is relative, or partial, to a select group of people who meet certain criteria.

We have a semantic problem: the definition of "universal" I was using was "found across the universe in a certain group of people".

Is that like saying Italians universally, or absolutely, enjoy spaghetti?

No. Not all Italians like spaghetti (that's merely a stereotype), but all people with the same intelligence have the same intelligence.

People with equal intelligence and no significant biases can be found all across the globe, so it's not a contradition. It is relative to that group.

So, all of these people should be able to take an exhaustive multidisciplinary test and score exactly alike, giving the exact same answers, for each of the problems. Correct?

Theoretically yes, they should be able to score alike and give the same answers on an ideal, perfectly accurate test. However there are practical issues that can make our measurements inaccurate, so creating this perfect test might not be feasible (but that doesn't mean that that which we're measuring doesn't exist). Right now, IQ tests are the closest we've got to measure intelligence, and there are people who have the same IQ (= vaguely "the same intelligence").

I can see this debate derail towards the question "What is intelligence?", so to avoid such a digression, I will simply formulate my definition of logic in a way that no longer makes this question relevant:

"The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises."

Do you agree with this definition of "logic"? This is the definition of "logic" I go by every time I use the word "logic" and "logical" in this post.

In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?

No. Because, universally, sentient beings do not have equal intelligence; if equal intelligence were a prerequisite for logic, then, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, let's cast "universal" aside, do you agree that logic is: "the system of thought that causes people with an equal intellectual level to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." ?

I don't know anyone of equal intelligence to anyone, else.

That is still not an answer to the question. Can you please answer a yes-no question with yes or no to make yourself clear?

Whether you know anyone of equal intelligence or not is not relevant, because the definition can still be right no matter whether people with equal intelligence exist or not. If people with equal intelligence don't exist, then just say that "logic is the system of thought that would cause people with equal intelligence to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises if they existed". What this definition implies is that, if two individuals come to a different conclusion based on the same premises, a lack of understanding of the premises must be the cause.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 3:28:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the part of my post you quoted, I explained to you why we can agree on a definition of logic, contrary to what you said. You respond with "logic is something that makes sense". I'm not seeing how your response relates to what I said: What part of the quote are you contradicting/agreeing with by saying this, exactly? If there is no relation, can you please avoid quoting it in the first place, because that will have me look for links that aren't there and confuse me as a result.

Anyway, what does "making sense" mean, then? We don't know that either. I don't think anyone here is making an attempt to "complicate" it, we're just looking for an clear, absolute definition of "logic" and "making sense" is just as elusive as "logical", so that cannot be used to define logic, hence why I said that the statement "something is logical in as much as it makes sense" brings nothing meaningful to the debate.

You honestly don't know the meaning of making sense? If that were the case, how can you say something does, or does not, make sense?

Okay.

In case "come to a consensus on that which is logical"= "agreeing that a reasoning leads to a true conclusion", that is indeed relative to our own understanding (and I've never said it wasn't nor did I say that you said so), we may indeed disagree on whether a reasoning is logical or not based on our differences in understanding (just like people can disagree on whether a mathematical equation is correct or not), but if it is logical, it is true independent of us; it is objectively true.

If it were independent, of us, and objectively true, then, it is true, for all sentient beings. How can you know something is true, independently of your knowledge of it? How can you know something makes sense, to all sentient beings?

I think our biggest discord lies here. Logic isn't just "relative to" a system of thought, it is a system of thought. There is a systematic way you have to think in order to be logical. Factual arguments linked in a way that follows this system of thought perfectly form a reasoning that leads to the truth.

I have no problems, with saying logic is a system of thought; the problem is saying that system of thought is not relative, but universal. If it were, then, all sentient beings would think alike; there would be no disagreements. That which is logical, to you, may not be logical, to someone else.


For example, If the table surface is empty and I lay one apple on it, then I lay another one, then it's a logical fact that I've put two apples on it (1+1=2). It's not "subjective" or "relative to me", it's the only truth, from what we know, and logic is the system of thought that caused me to deduce that truth.

First of all, your observation is relative, to you. You cannot say your observation is universal; if it were, your knowledge would be absolute, impartial, and utterly objective. There could be no other perspectives, or points of reference; for, your knowledge would be perfectly complete; having a complete understanding, the contents of consciousness would never change; for, there would be nothing to add. You can't say you have a partial, incomplete, limited knowledge of things and, then, say your knowledge is impartial and objective; that violates the law of noncontradiction.


People naturally follow that system of thought when they aren't led astray by biases or a lack of understanding, hence why I took people's thoughts as a basis for my definition of "logic".

When are people free from bias and a lack of understanding? In other words, when is our knowledge absolute?


Yes, that is exactly why I made a distinction between biases that are "significant" and those that aren't because we share them.

No. Not all Italians like spaghetti (that's merely a stereotype), but all people with the same intelligence have the same intelligence.

People with equal intelligence and no significant biases can be found all across the globe, so it's not a contradition. It is relative to that group.

Theoretically yes, they should be able to score alike and give the same answers on an ideal, perfectly accurate test. However there are practical issues that can make our measurements inaccurate, so creating this perfect test might not be feasible (but that doesn't mean that that which we're measuring doesn't exist). Right now, IQ tests are the closest we've got to measure intelligence, and there are people who have the same IQ (= vaguely


I can see this debate derail towards the question "What is intelligence?", so to avoid such a digression, I will simply formulate my definition of logic in a way that no longer makes this question relevant:

"The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises."

Do you agree with this definition of "logic"? This is the definition of "logic" I go by every time I use the word "logic" and "logical" in this post.

In other words, logic is "the system of thought that causes people with equal intellectual level to universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", do you think that definition of logic is valid?

No. Because, universally, sentient beings do not have equal intelligence; if equal intelligence were a prerequisite for logic, then, logic doesn't exist.

Okay, let's cast "universal" aside, do you agree that logic is: "the system of thought that causes people with an equal intellectual level to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." ?

I don't know anyone of equal intelligence to anyone, else.

That is still not an answer to the question. Can you please answer a yes-no question with yes or no to make yourself clear?

Whether you know anyone of equal intelligence or not is not relevant, because the definition can still be right no matter whether people with equal intelligence exist or not. If people with equal intelligence don't exist, then just say that "logic is the system of thought that would cause people with equal intelligence to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises if they existed". What this definition implies is that, if two individuals come to a different conclusion based on the same premises, a lack of understanding of the premises must be the cause.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 4:29:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:50:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
Many would agree that a debate must be on the basis of logic.
But I have come to question the definition of Logic as people can interpret differently.
Is Logic a set of natural procedures that everyone(anything with a brain) follows to come to a conclusion, like a mathematical equation? We only find Logic differ between people because of different levels of understanding?
Is Logic a personal thinking process that varies for different people, and there are no "correct" logic, only the more "reasonable" and "convincing" logic?
Is Logic absolutely rational, with out sentiment, without bias, and without fault?
Let's share thoughts :)
This questions literally EVERYTHING, as our thinking process is based on logic, even we haven't decided on a exact definition... It is a paradoxical thing, and I thought long and hard about it, only to gain a weighty, smelly, and very spiky headache...
Thanks
The Random Guy

If we really defined it and we wanted logic to be as objective as possible, then I suppose you'd have to define it by what is empirically verifiable or mathematically sound.

For example, it is logical to conclude that "x" in 2x = 6 is 3 using very simple algebra. This should be an objective fact, should it not?
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:45:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 3:28:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You honestly don't know the meaning of making sense? If that were the case, how can you say something does, or does not, make sense?

I can say it the exact same way I can say that something is "logical". I have my view of "logic" and you have yours and yet we're debating what it means (and haven't reached a conclusion, so we don't have established knowledge of what it means), aren't we? I'm saying that "making sense" and "logical" are both as elusive, so you cannot resolve a debate revolving around the question "What is logic?" with the answer "it's something that makes sense". Making sense and logical mean the same thing, so if you don't know the meaning of one, you don't know the meaning of the other.

I have no problems, with saying logic is a system of thought; the problem is saying that system of thought is not relative, but universal. If it were, then, all sentient beings would think alike; there would be no disagreements. That which is logical, to you, may not be logical, to someone else.

No, it would not. You are not taking account of the semantic discord we had on the word "universal". "Universal as I use it does not mean "applying to every single person on earth", it means that it applies to a certain group. And that group does think alike.

For example, If the table surface is empty and I lay one apple on it, then I lay another one, then it's a logical fact that I've put two apples on it (1+1=2). It's not "subjective" or "relative to me", it's the only truth, from what we know, and logic is the system of thought that caused me to deduce that truth.

First of all, your observation is relative, to you. You cannot say your observation is universal; if it were, your knowledge would be absolute, impartial, and utterly objective. There could be no other perspectives, or points of reference; for, your knowledge would be perfectly complete; having a complete understanding, the contents of consciousness would never change; for, there would be nothing to add. You can't say you have a partial, incomplete, limited knowledge of things and, then, say your knowledge is impartial and objective; that violates the law of noncontradiction.

From what I know, nobody has ever been able to come up with a reasoning that contradicts the notion that 1 + 1 = 2 . It's a fact of reality. Reality does not bend to our wishes, it exists and we just perceive it. If we all see that there are two apples on the table after I've put one there and another one, the only conclusion that seems logical to us is that 1+1=2. The only reason why I say "seem" here, is because we could have a lack of understanding or a bias that blinds us to another conclusion, but nothing points towards the idea that we are. If lack of understanding or biases were not a thing, that conclusion would be an objective truth and we would know for sure that it's logical.

People naturally follow that system of thought when they aren't led astray by biases or a lack of understanding, hence why I took people's thoughts as a basis for my definition of "logic".

When are people free from bias and a lack of understanding? In other words, when is our knowledge absolute?

Never and that isn't relevant if you consider logic as something that we strive to attain, but which is impeded by our own biases and lack of understanding.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:45:03 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 5/5/2014 3:28:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You honestly don't know the meaning of making sense? If that were the case, how can you say something does, or does not, make sense?

I can say it the exact same way I can say that something is "logical". I have my view of "logic" and you have yours and yet we're debating what it means (and haven't reached a conclusion, so we don't have established knowledge of what it means), aren't we?

That's my point, exactly. That which makes sense, to you, and that which makes sense, to me, are not, necessarily, the same thing. If they were, we wouldn't be arguing. However, just because we're not in agreement doesn't mean we haven't individually reached a conclusion, or established truths for ourselves, respectively.

I'm saying that "making sense" and "logical" are both as elusive, so you cannot resolve a debate revolving around the question "What is logic?" with the answer "it's something that makes sense". Making sense and logical mean the same thing, so if you don't know the meaning of one, you don't know the meaning of the other.

I still find it difficult, to hear someone's saying making sense is elusive, especially considering the fact one's sensibilities are the very makings of consciousness. Furthermore, how do you know they mean the same thing, if you find their meanings elusive? How can you even argue about something whose meaning eludes you?


I have no problems, with saying logic is a system of thought; the problem is saying that system of thought is not relative, but universal. If it were, then, all sentient beings would think alike; there would be no disagreements. That which is logical, to you, may not be logical, to someone else.

No, it would not. You are not taking account of the semantic discord we had on the word "universal". "Universal as I use it does not mean "applying to every single person on earth", it means that it applies to a certain group. And that group does think alike.

So, this would go to the very meaning of the word universal. Is it your opinion our differences give meaning to that which is universal? Are you applying the term in the sense fish universally need water to live, or land animals universally need air? In both cases, even though universal is used in a restrictive sense, it speaks to the very essence of that which it means to be a fish or a land animal. In the case of sentient beings, sentience is universal; because, it's essential; having equal intelligence is not. In fact, having equal intelligence is very rare; so much so, most people score differently, on the same exact tests.


For example, If the table surface is empty and I lay one apple on it, then I lay another one, then it's a logical fact that I've put two apples on it (1+1=2). It's not "subjective" or "relative to me", it's the only truth, from what we know, and logic is the system of thought that caused me to deduce that truth.

First of all, your observation is relative, to you. You cannot say your observation is universal; if it were, your knowledge would be absolute, impartial, and utterly objective. There could be no other perspectives, or points of reference; for, your knowledge would be perfectly complete; having a complete understanding, the contents of consciousness would never change; for, there would be nothing to add. You can't say you have a partial, incomplete, limited knowledge of things and, then, say your knowledge is impartial and objective; that violates the law of noncontradiction.

From what I know, nobody has ever been able to come up with a reasoning that contradicts the notion that 1 + 1 = 2 . It's a fact of reality. Reality does not bend to our wishes, it exists and we just perceive it. If we all see that there are two apples on the table after I've put one there and another one, the only conclusion that seems logical to us is that 1+1=2. The only reason why I say "seem" here, is because we could have a lack of understanding or a bias that blinds us to another conclusion, but nothing points towards the idea that we are. If lack of understanding or biases were not a thing, that conclusion would be an objective truth and we would know for sure that it's logical.

However, lack of understanding and biases are very real things therefore no objective truth, as far as we know it. It is a universal fact all sentient beings have sentience; it is not a universal fact all sentient beings have equal intelligence.


People naturally follow that system of thought when they aren't led astray by biases or a lack of understanding, hence why I took people's thoughts as a basis for my definition of "logic".

When are people free from bias and a lack of understanding? In other words, when is our knowledge absolute?

Never and that isn't relevant if you consider logic as something that we strive to attain, but which is impeded by our own biases and lack of understanding.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:30:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:54:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
However, just because we're not in agreement doesn't mean we haven't individually reached a conclusion, or established truths for ourselves, respectively.

Yes, by "we don't know the meaning", I didn't mean that we didn't have our personal idea of what it means, I meant that we haven't reached an agreement, a dictionary definition that would apply to everyone, which is what the OP is asking for.

I still find it difficult, to hear someone's saying making sense is elusive,

I didn't just say that it's elusive, I said that it's just as elusive as "logical".

especially considering the fact one's sensibilities are the very makings of consciousness.

How is that relevant in any way?

Furthermore, how do you know they mean the same thing, if you find their meanings elusive? How can you even argue about something whose meaning eludes you?

I have my own idea of what it means, but It's elusive to the OP. That's why he/she made the thread. He's asking for a definition and you define it with a word that is just as unclear. You're clarifying something with something else that is just as unclear as the thing you're clarifying. Do you see why that's an issue to me?

So, this would go to the very meaning of the word universal. Is it your opinion our differences give meaning to that which is universal? Are you applying the term in the sense fish universally need water to live, or land animals universally need air? In both cases, even though universal is used in a restrictive sense, it speaks to the very essence of that which it means to be a fish or a land animal. In the case of sentient beings, sentience is universal; because, it's essential; having equal intelligence is not. In fact, having equal intelligence is very rare; so much so, most people score differently, on the same exact tests.

It's completely irrelevant that the characteristic called "universal" speaks to the very essence or not. I think you're making it unnecessarily convoluted. If "universal" is defined as "found across the universe in a certain group of people" as I said, that's all it means. There's no talk of whether it's essential or not in that definition.

However, lack of understanding and biases are very real things therefore no objective truth, as far as we know it. It is a universal fact all sentient beings have sentience; it is not a universal fact all sentient beings have equal intelligence.

This thread is not about objective truths, it's about the meaning of "logic". Do you agree that "The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." is a correct definition of "logic"? If you agree, there isn't anything more to discuss.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 3:30:32 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:54:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
However, just because we're not in agreement doesn't mean we haven't individually reached a conclusion, or established truths for ourselves, respectively.

Yes, by "we don't know the meaning", I didn't mean that we didn't have our personal idea of what it means, I meant that we haven't reached an agreement, a dictionary definition that would apply to everyone, which is what the OP is asking for.

I still find it difficult, to hear someone's saying making sense is elusive,

I didn't just say that it's elusive, I said that it's just as elusive as "logical".

If it makes sense to us, individually, I don't see how its meaning eludes us; and, even as a collective, it is not beyond comprehension; of course, we may disagree, in some regards, or we wouldn't disagree; however, the very fact we're able to communicate implies its collective meaning is not completely lost.


especially considering the fact one's sensibilities are the very makings of consciousness.

How is that relevant in any way?

Furthermore, how do you know they mean the same thing, if you find their meanings elusive? How can you even argue about something whose meaning eludes you?

I have my own idea of what it means, but It's elusive to the OP. That's why he/she made the thread. He's asking for a definition and you define it with a word that is just as unclear. You're clarifying something with something else that is just as unclear as the thing you're clarifying. Do you see why that's an issue to me?


So, this would go to the very meaning of the word universal. Is it your opinion our differences give meaning to that which is universal? Are you applying the term in the sense fish universally need water to live, or land animals universally need air? In both cases, even though universal is used in a restrictive sense, it speaks to the very essence of that which it means to be a fish or a land animal. In the case of sentient beings, sentience is universal; because, it's essential; having equal intelligence is not. In fact, having equal intelligence is very rare; so much so, most people score differently, on the same exact tests.

It's completely irrelevant that the characteristic called "universal" speaks to the very essence or not. I think you're making it unnecessarily convoluted. If "universal" is defined as "found across the universe in a certain group of people" as I said, that's all it means. There's no talk of whether it's essential or not in that definition.

If it's not found, essentially, among a certain group, then, what, in God's name, does it mean? How is a certain quality, or property, universal to a group, if it's not essential? If that's the case, then, any characteristic found in a group, no matter how rare it is to the group, is universal.


However, lack of understanding and biases are very real things therefore no objective truth, as far as we know it. It is a universal fact all sentient beings have sentience; it is not a universal fact all sentient beings have equal intelligence.

This thread is not about objective truths, it's about the meaning of "logic". Do you agree that "The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." is a correct definition of "logic"? If you agree, there isn't anything more to discuss.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 11:03:35 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If it makes sense to us, individually, I don't see how its meaning eludes us;

I have no idea why you put italicized "its" here.

and, even as a collective, it is not beyond comprehension; of course, we may disagree, in some regards, or we wouldn't disagree; however, the very fact we're able to communicate implies its collective meaning is not completely lost.

Nobody said that the meaning of "making sense" is "completely lost", the OP just asked us to provide a clear definition of the term. I already said that I meant that it's elusive to the OP, not to us.

Do you, or do you not agree with me when I tell you it's useless to answer "logical means making sense" to someone who asks you to define "logic" because "making sense" is just as unclear as "logic"? If you do agree, then there's no point in furthering this discussion because the point has been made.

Something "universal" is something found in all the people who belong to the same group. If the group we're talking about is the group of people with equal intelligence and all people with equal intelligence reach the same conclusions based on the same premises, then it fits to say that "people with equal intelligence universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", which was the point I was making. Your remark about how not every sentient being has the same intelligence is irrelevant because I'm specifically talking about people with equal intelligence here.

And finally, you have blatantly avoided and ignored the most important question of my post and repetitively so, why is that?

Do you agree that "The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." is a correct definition of "logic"?

If you already agree with this definition of "logic", then we can stop discussing because the goal of this thread has been reached.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:17:02 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:03:35 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If it makes sense to us, individually, I don't see how its meaning eludes us;

I have no idea why you put italicized "its" here.

and, even as a collective, it is not beyond comprehension; of course, we may disagree, in some regards, or we wouldn't disagree; however, the very fact we're able to communicate implies its collective meaning is not completely lost.

Nobody said that the meaning of "making sense" is "completely lost", the OP just asked us to provide a clear definition of the term. I already said that I meant that it's elusive to the OP, not to us.

Do you, or do you not agree with me when I tell you it's useless to answer "logical means making sense" to someone who asks you to define "logic" because "making sense" is just as unclear as "logic"? If you do agree, then there's no point in furthering this discussion because the point has been made.

No. I don't agree; because, I don't see how it is making sense and logic are unclear.


Something "universal" is something found in all the people who belong to the same group. If the group we're talking about is the group of people with equal intelligence and all people with equal intelligence reach the same conclusions based on the same premises, then it fits to say that "people with equal intelligence universally reach the same conclusions based on the same premises", which was the point I was making. Your remark about how not every sentient being has the same intelligence is irrelevant because I'm specifically talking about people with equal intelligence here.

So, is that like saying people with dementia universally suffer from memory loss? If so, dementia is a well documented mental condition; people-with-equal intelligence is not.

I think you're taking an informal designation of an aptitude for learning and you're confusing it with empirical data. IQ tests are very controversial; Einstein and Jung thought they were nonsense; namely, because, it's impossible to exhaustively measure intelligence. Intelligence is not so narrowly defined; people have very diverse and a wide range of aptitudes.


And finally, you have blatantly avoided and ignored the most important question of my post and repetitively so, why is that?

Do you agree that "The system of thought that causes people with an equal understanding of the relevant information to reach the same conclusions based on the same premises." is a correct definition of "logic"?

No. Because, I don't believe logic requires a consensus.


If you already agree with this definition of "logic", then we can stop discussing because the goal of this thread has been reached.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 11:32:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anthony-s, how can you possibly not agree that the definition of "logic" is unclear to the OP in a thread that explicitely asks for a definition of "logic"? Why would the OP ask this if he already has a clear idea of what it means to everyone?

You have your idea of what the word "logic" means, I have a different idea, which means I don't know what you mean when you use that word and vice-versa, and the OP doesn't know what you or I mea when we use the word. If it was clear to everyone what everyone's definition of "logic" is, we would not be arguing about what its definition is.

"Well-documented" is not a part of the definition of "universal" that I provided, so how is it relevant in any way that people with equal intelligence aren't well-documented? Why bring that into this? It isn't relevant. And neither is the fiability of IQ tests. It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that, by definition, thinking alike would be a characteristic of two people with equal intelligence if you found them. If you think it changes something, the BoP is on you.
And I honestly don't see how you can think that. Intelligence is all about how one thinks, so it should be obvious that equal intelligence would mean equal way of thinking.

And finally, please provide a clear definition of the word "logic", because I really don't see what you mean by it if you disagree with the definition I gave. If you're going to use "makes sense" in that definition, please define "making sense". No, I don't know what you mean by that either.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 10:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 11:32:21 AM, Questionner wrote:
Anthony-s, how can you possibly not agree that the definition of "logic" is unclear to the OP in a thread that explicitely asks for a definition of "logic"? Why would the OP ask this if he already has a clear idea of what it means to everyone?

I don't think he has a clear idea of that which it means, to anyone but himself. He can only speak, for himself, as to that which anything means.


You have your idea of what the word "logic" means, I have a different idea, which means I don't know what you mean when you use that word and vice-versa, and the OP doesn't know what you or I mea when we use the word. If it was clear to everyone what everyone's definition of "logic" is, we would not be arguing about what its definition is.

"Well-documented" is not a part of the definition of "universal" that I provided, so how is it relevant in any way that people with equal intelligence aren't well-documented? Why bring that into this? It isn't relevant. And neither is the fiability of IQ tests. It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that, by definition, thinking alike would be a characteristic of two people with equal intelligence if you found them. If you think it changes something, the BoP is on you.
And I honestly don't see how you can think that. Intelligence is all about how one thinks, so it should be obvious that equal intelligence would mean equal way of thinking.

How can you define something by something that, if it exists, is so elusive it has never been empirically documented? That's like saying dementia is defined by a loss of memory, even though a loss of memory has never been documented, in people with dementia.


And finally, please provide a clear definition of the word "logic", because I really don't see what you mean by it if you disagree with the definition I gave. If you're going to use "makes sense" in that definition, please define "making sense". No, I don't know what you mean by that either.

For me, as I said before, logic, and making sense, is as primal as thought; it is mere consciousness; and, consciousness is self-awareness.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 1:57:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 10:28:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
He can only speak, for himself, as to that which anything means.

No, if we agree on a definition, he will know what we mean by it too. And if we reach a conclusion that nobody else contradicts, he'll have a better idea of what other people besides us think of it because it's likely that they're staying silent because they agree.

It's important to agree on definitions, you can't clearly understand what other people say if you don't know what the words they use mean to them. That's why we have dictionaries.

And I honestly don't see how you can think that. Intelligence is all about how one thinks, so it should be obvious that equal intelligence would mean equal way of thinking.

How can you define something by something that, if it exists, is so elusive it has never been empirically documented?

Equal intelligence hasn't not been documented because it's "elusive", it hasn't because we don't find people two people with equal intelligence. It's HYPOTHETICAL. Unicorns haven't been empirically documented, but that changes nothing about the fact that they're horses with a horn, that's the concept, so IF you did find a unicorn, you would find a horse with a horn on its head. There's nothing "elusive" about that. If it doesn't have a horn, it's not a unicorn.

That's like saying dementia is defined by a loss of memory, even though a loss of memory has never been documented, in people with dementia.

No, it's not like that at all. I don't even see where you're getting that conclusion from. If dementia is characterized by memory loss, it means that if you found someone with dementia, that person you found would automatically have memory loss. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for that person to have dementia without having memory loss because memory loss is inherent to the definition of dementia. If you define dementia by memory loss and then say that someone without memory loss has dementia, you're simply not making any sense; you're not following your OWN definition of the word. Likewise, if having an intelligence of the type A means that you think a certain way, logically, IF you found two people with A intelligence they WOULD both think that certain way, by definition.

And finally, please provide a clear definition of the word "logic", because I really don't see what you mean by it if you disagree with the definition I gave. If you're going to use "makes sense" in that definition, please define "making sense". No, I don't know what you mean by that either.

For me, as I said before, logic, and making sense, is as primal as thought;

I'm not asking for comparisons, I'm asking for a DEFINITION, a statement that you could put in a dictionary and that would enable people to learn what it means after reading it.

it is mere consciousness; and, consciousness is self-awareness.

???

Logic is self-awareness? So when someone says that 2 + 2 logically equals 4, they're saying that "two plus two self-awarely equals four"? What does that even mean? That makes absolutely no sense.