All Big Issues
The Instigator
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

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: 2,601 times Debate No: 52979
Debate Rounds (3)

39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 30 records.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
RFD:

I"m going to address the two sides of this debate separately because, unfortunately, the debaters appear to have been debating different resolutions throughout. I will begin with the instigator.

I find it hard to tell exactly what Pro was hoping to accomplish with this debate. He says that he is going to argue that all logic is circular. He then convincingly argues that a seemingly-logical world could exist as an internal artifact of a illogical universe, one not bound by the constraints of non-contradiction. I fail to see how this proves the resolution.

It is true that logic is inherently circular. The nature of the axioms of logic is that they presuppose themselves; one cannot discuss logic in any meaningful way without using logic. The axioms are assumed to be true because they permit/cause their own existence, which caused immense problems to mathematicians searching for the ultimate absolute foundations of math and logic; RE: Bertrand Russell, Hilbert, et al. It is elephants all the way down, as it were.

The circularity of logic does not mean it is invalid; quite the opposite. All circular arguments are obviously valid, since the premise and the conclusion are the same. Circular arguments are self-contained and self-evident. A, :. A. It is only considered a mistake of reasoning because you are not actually proving anything by it; you are merely restating your starting premise in your conclusion.

Now, the axioms of logic may or may not represent reality; their truth or falsity can be and are debated. But Pro's initial definition of circular arguments as false is incorrect; or at least misleading. All circular arguments are valid; false circular arguments are false, and true ones are true. It depends entirely on the truthhood of the premise.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Like wise, @Mhykiel. I do agree that I should have clarified more, especially surrounding the deductive argument. You seem very knowledgeable, and it would be great to debate you when I get a little more used to the site.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
@creedhunt. I enjoyed the debate. It's so important to define the terms and how any argument relates to the assertion. Hope to debate you again some day. You have some interesting ideas.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
The application of the logical system is oddly enough only non circular if it's assumed not to be true and therefore true
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
You are misreading me when you say that an objects cannot contain logic. My point is that there is a logical system, which means there is a negation of the absence of said system.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
An illogical object can refer to an object to which the logical system does not apply. The term is not exclusively referential to an irrational argument or state of mind.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
in other words there is no point in proving your case because there is no meaning in providing evidence that something can contain logic
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
your case is invalid do to you placing the form of logic within an object and not a person. the word something is improper in this case. a person is "something" that can be illogical and something (someone) containing of logic. therefore your case is fiddlebustered.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Well first off, Surrealism, you'd need to rephrase your example a bit for it to be logically sound. If ALL concave kites are chevrons then by definition..yeah. But more importantly, I am debating against the claim that they are by definition true. That's the entire point.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
But they work by definition. They are synthetic propositions. It is impossible for them not to be true. For example, if we agree that a chevron is a concave kite, then, by definition, any time we see a quadrilateral with two pairs of adjacent congruent sides that has each opposite angle facing the same direction, it is by definition a chevron. Likewise, since the rules of logic are defined as the specific rules for managing truth claims, they are by definition true.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.