The Instigator
creedhunt
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Winning
6 Points

The Entirety of Logic is Circular

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Anonymous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,597 times Debate No: 52979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)

 

creedhunt

Pro

Good evening,

Today I will be debating for the idea that all of logic is circular. I am very interested to hear my opponent's contentions.

Definitions

Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to a strict code of validity

Circular: Already containing am assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious

Con

Hello Pro thank you for debating with me.

For now I'll just accept the challenge and wait for Pro's case
Debate Round No. 1
creedhunt

Pro

Hello Con, and thank you for accepting my debate.

Logic relies on assumption that nothing can be illogical.
This is because, in a hypothetical situation where logic does not apply, nothing can be said with certainty.
If we accept this contention as true, then within an illogical world, a logical one could exist. If we accept this as true, then logical and illogical truths could coexist.

I am interested in hearing my opponent's response.

Con

Logic as you defined it is a path of reasoning within a strict code of validity.

Having accepted the debate I also accepted the definitions Pro is outlining.

Given so, My contention is with the first premise that "Logic relies on an assumption that nothing can be illogical". Later you state that within an illogical world a logical one could exist. This strikes me as fallacious because if you are asserting nothing can be illogical then there is no illogical world. Therefore your premise should follow

Logic relies on assuming nothing is illogical.
Therefore, a Logical world exists inside a logical world.

I Don't agree with that inference either however. Circular being as you defined it "assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious" We both can come up with many examples. The Axioms of Math, the presuppositions of Science (Laws of nature acted the same through out all time, etc..) and so forth.

I am Con to THE ENTIRETY of Logic... Much can be construed as circular. Hence Descartes reasoning "I think therefore I am" I would Argue the truest statement that can ever be made. In the effort to Logically ascertain the state of his own existence Descartes could find no deductive or inferred reasoning to absolute condition of his existence. But in the Action of thinking, and I hope to make this clear, the result of thinking can have circular logic and the reasoning can encompass assumptions,

BUT the action itself is free from assumptions. Therefore With the action of thinking, it LOGICALLY proves " I exist". and is non circular by your definition. So the Entirety, 100% of logic, follows pros assertion is false
Debate Round No. 2
creedhunt

Pro

I would argue that the basis of logic is a priori truths or axioms. We cannot have conclusions that do not arrive from the idea that a=a (a here representing an idea, or Aristotle's "essence"). For example, an unmarried bachelor cannot possibly exist, because being a bachelor (a) means being unmarried (a), so a=a. We can reduce all logical claims to extensions of this idea. I now hope to demonstrate why a being a depends on the conclusion that that truth has already been found.

My opponent has claimed that I am asserting that the illogical is impossible, when in fact my entire case rests on the ground that the illogical is possible, and thereby rendering logic fallacious.

I could shift the BOP to my opponent and ask him to prove logical contentions to be true without using said logical contentions, but we are running out of debate and I should make my point.

If we are to put forward the idea of a truth, then there must be an opposite contention that is false. When we say that a=a, that means that any situation where a is not a cannot exist. But what THAT means, is that if a was not a, then things could not be the way things are in reality. To simplify, the world that exists and the world without logic's inherent validity are not the same world.

In a world without logic (which would have to be one that cannot exist) you can have a world with logic, because in a world where logic does not apply the truth of it being illogical no longer needs to true in order to be true. In a world where something can contradict itself, something can both contradict itself and not contradict itself at the same time. So, in a world where things can contradict themselves (aka a world that does not exist), there can be a world which can exist. So if in a world where the illogical is possible it is possible to have a world where the illogical is impossible, then you could hypothetically have a scenario where this exact world exists within a larger impossible one. So if a=/=a, then a (which is not a) could hypothetically be a because it isn't a. Logically, the illogical is not bound by logic, so any logical conclusions you can have about its inexistence are dependant on its inexistence.

I really appreciate your time and wit.

Con

Yes a few more rounds would be nice.
It appears that when you use the word Logic, you sometimes refer to the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a Logical Process. For instance before setting out on the process a scientist conceptualizes a hypothesis A equals A. Makes a prediction of what a test result will be: If I have A it will equal A. Then performs the test to find out if A=A or A=/=A.

But it is not the only Logical Process or only path to a understanding something true. There is Reasoning. Reasoning does not make a prediction. Deductive Reasoning. It seeks the certainty of Validity of a Truth statements on the premise that anything reasoned should match with prior experience.

There is also Inductive Reasoning that seeks to establish the probability of a truth statements claim.

For instance if I poke you in the eye, I use inductive reasoning to learn that this will probably hurt you because getting poked in the eye hurts me. I would say I can be 80% sure you will hurt. My truth claim This will hurt you is LIKELY and the reasoning for it is Strong Validly.

But after I poke you, and you claim "ouch that hurts" is more than just deductive for you. It's a Brute Fact! The pain is unmistakable to you. To you the truth statement " I hurt" is 100% True. To me I can assume it is LIKELY to be true. Even tho my Claim "it will hurt you" has an assumption at it's root; YOUR claim "I hurt" is not circular.

Can there be illogical things. Logic says "YES" because there are fallacies. There are lines of reasoning that we as a people agree can more often than naught lead to FALSE results. Logic as a study also states that one can logically infer currently from a set of premises a VALID Claim, even if all the premises are false. Logic says you can use the wrong numbers and still arrive at the right answer.

I think much of this is off topic. Given Pro's Assertion "The Entirety of Logic is Circular" given the definition Pro established. I have already proved wrong that there is some Logic (I think therefore I am, Brute Facts, Inductive Reasoning, False Premise -> Valid Claim) can begin with no assumptions and not rely on the out come for the starting conditions to be present.

Thank you for debating with me, I had a good time.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
creedhunt
Thank you very much for taking the time and thought that you did to the debate, Chrysippus
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
DeletedUser
@Chrysippus I can see why earlier you stated this didn't go the way you expected. But certainly my first round use of "I think therefore I am" is relevant to the argument. It is logical argument well described by Ren" Descartes. It is Inductive reasoning that leads to a 100% certain Statement not involving the circular axioms or assumptions. Do you not agree?
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@both: This RFD was not meant harshly; I assure you. I enjoyed reading the debate, and I thought you both had some excellent points - but you two were not arguing the same resolution.

@creedhunt: I really don't see how anything in your arguments shows the circularity of logic. I'm missing it. I see the ability for logic and illogic to be valid in the same universe, and the second paragraph of your last round says that all logic is false because of that.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
creedhunt
Logic that coexists with its own absence would prove its falsehood. In order to remove the potential for falsehood, logic would have to be false. This just proves that any form of logic which is not circular is false, and therefore does not exist.

About the burden of proof, the reason I had that there was because I was claiming there to be no non-circular proof for logic, and that there was a longstanding burden of proof that has not been met within every point ever. My entire argument relies around the idea that no burden of proof has ever been met in a completely satisfactory way.

All in all, my clarity may very well be at question, but my focus on the topic and my evidence for the resolution are less sparse than you make it out to be.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@Mhykiel: Yes, as I said, you gave perfectly valid examples of non-circular logic; and I suppose you also gave examples of facts are that are not logical arguments of any kind. The "brute facts" are irrelevant to the statement that all logic is circular, since they are not arguments; the arguments are not circular themselves, but do nothing to disprove the circularity of the axioms they depend on to have any meaning whatsoever.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
DeletedUser
@Chysippus I take you critique to heart and I will definitely strive to make the language clearer.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
DeletedUser
@Chrysippus I used the brute fact example. Tho recognized in logic a brute fact is unexplainable by logic. Same as with the Descartes quote. I think are 2 examples of logic that are not circular. One being unexplainable by logic means the Assumptions of Logic can not be part of it's logical consideration. Same with the action of thinking in that the action is separate from any bias of the process. Therefore the logical conclusion would be non circular to it's original premises. I had a hard time understanding what Pro was arguing for in the beginning so I was hoping the next round would illustrate more his point.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
creedhunt
Well I don't belive I ever suggested that logic is false. Just that it is circular.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD cont.
Con misunderstands the resolution to be saying that all logical arguments are circular arguments; if that were the case, and one can understand the confusion, then his arguments clearly demonstrate the reverse, and he upholds his burden.

While NEITHER debater actually argued to the resolution as stated, Con came closer and did a better job on the whole of showing how his arguments actually applied to the debate at hand. I give him the arguments points.

There are a few points in Con's rounds where I am still not 100% certain what he was trying to say, even after careful reading and rereading. The point is not completely lost, but the grammar is uncertain, and I had difficulty parsing his meaning. SP/G goes to Pro.

Conduct and sources tied, with one caveat. Pro says in his last round: "I could shift the BOP to my opponent and ask him to prove logical contentions to be true without using said logical contentions""

No, you couldn't, not on my watch - and ESPECIALLY towards the end of the debate. You have the BOP as the instigator; all Con really had to do was to disprove your arguments, had they been on topic - this debate, Con could have won just by pointing out each round that you were arguing off-topic. But to try to shift the BOP in the very last round is abusive and wrong. Don't do it.

You didn't, so I'm not penalizing you; but if you had, that'd cost you the conduct point at least.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD cont.
In R2, Pro argues tersely that logic requires its own validity, but that in an illogical world, logic could be both valid and not-valid at the same time. At the beginning of R3, Pro spends a paragraph arguing for the axiomatic nature of logic. He then argues that because the illogical is possible, logic is false.

This is incorrect; you cannot prove a certainty from a possibility. All his argument proves is that it is conceivable that logic could be both false and true, if we lived in an illogical universe. He cannot then turn around and say that therefore logic IS false; he can only say logic MIGHT BE false IF this condition were met.

The other problem with his arguments are that they are largely off-topic. His resolution was that all of logic is circular; a statement of fact, and not really debatable. He does not spend any time attempting to prove this, however, which confuses me. Why post arguments as carefully reasoned as these under a resolution they do not support?

Pro's arguments were great if the resolution were "The axioms of logic could be both false and true simultaneously." In this debate, though, he failed to support his BOP - one that could have been upheld with little more than a dictionary definition.

Con stuck closer to the resolution given. He attempts to show that not all logic is circular. His examples, though are for specific logical arguments that are not circular. They aren't examples of circular logic, true; but the only reason that they are valid is because they conform to the "strict code of validity" formal logic dictates - which in turn is only valid because it conforms to itself. Logic itself, the framework in which the arguments Con proposes are not circular exist, is inherently circular because it presupposes itself.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
creedhuntAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 7 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
creedhuntAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the con that this became very off topic but very interesting. As most of this was off topic I am only judging on what points were toward the prompt. I agree with the con because of the examples he gave proved his point very well. The pro maybe should have changed the prompt to be more about logic in general than logic being circular. Cool debate. You should use a source here and there though otherwise voters can't legitimately give you those points.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.