Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
I request your perspective.
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:19:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Review and respond with your assessments regarding this argument of logic. Argument B is a response to argument A.
Where the entirety of the system in which logical operations are being conducted is defined, pure logic (not relying on any outside elements) doesn't need proof. That's my contention. My evidence is exclusively logical: 1+1=2 because this holds true to a defining principle of the numerical system: the fact that 1+1=2 is assumed for the entire concept of numerical manipulation to be functional. It is so because this is how the system was conceived. Yes, our methods of numerical manipulation are based on the actual manipulation of physical elements, but the number system is the purely logical extract of this applied logic. This is proof enough to show that in a predefined system, elements of the system which are essential to the system's definition cannot be questioned. When a claim is purely logical, and therefore operates solely on facts which are assumed to be true and cannot be claimed to be otherwise, such as the elements in a logical system which define it, no additional proof (evidence) is necessary to prove the legitimacy of the claim.
Not does logic require proof, but logic is evidential, evidence is a prerequisite to logic. However, a plausible rebuttal to that assertion may be that, it is conceivable, that logic in order to decipher or verify evidence, is compulsory. Infinite regress is applicable to the latter scenario and the former. Moreover, logic is a result of information inferred from reality. Something that is demonstrable, empirical, and/or tangible. There is a disparity between the soundness of the logic criteria and the validity or how accurate the logic is, or the extent of the trueness. Truth being what comports with reality, and what is consistent with reality. You express the example 1+1=2. The logic is evidential and verifiable. How? Testing the logic or observing the logic wherein a consistent or predictive outcome is robust. I will concede that logic, as merely defined as an abstract, is able to applied or asserted devoid of proof. However, what methods did you implement to arrive to the conclusion that 1+1=2? Is it self evident that 1+1=2? Or do we compare that to an external factor, such as a numerical value. Yes, to assert that 1+1=2 does not require evidence to merely state that. However, to verify or substantiate the logics validity, the scrutinization of evidence is pivotal and profoundly imperative in order to establish the logics viability, What practicality can we derive from logic if the logic itself is not able or not successfully submitted to be compared to evidence. That my friend, would be an assumption.