Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16

# On circuclar reasoning

 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoReasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 1:02:39 PMPosted: 2 years agoAgreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 1:11:24 PMPosted: 2 years agoLike Jesus once said: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 1:59:48 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 11/23/2014 1:02:39 PM, fazz wrote:Agreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.I don't know what this means."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 2:09:30 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 11/23/2014 1:59:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/23/2014 1:02:39 PM, fazz wrote:Agreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.I don't know what this means.I was just thinking aloud.
 Posts: 3,648 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 2:39:39 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.It is an epistemological problem.How do we know X is true? Because Y is true.Then how do we know Y is true? Because X is true.If that is your only basis for believing either X or Y to be true, then the reasoning process is invalid, since you are not justifying why either of them are valid. To state an argument is invalid is not to state that the conclusion is false, but that we are no closer to accepting the conclusion is true than before.The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.
 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/23/2014 3:51:17 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 11/23/2014 2:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.But logic is not just an axiomatic system. What distinguishes logic from other axiomatic systems is that logic always preserves the true-false distinction. As I pointed out, truth is the identity of logic. In other words, logic is defined such that you can apply all the logical operations you want, and at the end of the day "truth" = "truth". It's the rules by which we avoid contradiction, which is necessary in any attempt to arrive at truth since truth is by definition truth and not non-truth.To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.Assuming I'm understanding you correctly (which is a bit of a stretch), this is contradictory. If truth is not meaningful, then your statement that "it is true that "truth" is not meaningful" is itself meaningless or contradictory. Without 2VL, you cannot even identify anything.Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.Meaningless concepts are just that: meaningless. They do not establish that anything avoids the T/F distinction, since there isn't even anything to speak of. So I fail to see how this applies to "truth", considering that all of your arguments rely on it and thus require it to have meaning."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."