Does logic equal truth?

[DawudTalut]

There are a number of logical explanations for the same reality.

If I show up at your house, logically I could have taken the bus, walked or driven my car.

Should the door opener assume they know which is the most logical way?

Peace be on you.
The same reality will appear differently to an observer who watches through Hubble telescope and to the observer who watches with simple sight, both will think they see the whole picture.

But there is an absolute reality, matching perfect observer is required.

Your using a mode of transport will depend on several conditions; availability, resources, time, mood, weather, health etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So in context of that I posted another rediculous method of travel.

What mode of travel?

Your post still looks the same. It says "edited" at the bottom, but it still only lists taking the bus, walking, or driving.

 

[God lover]

I'm just trying to point out that you're doing the thing you're apparently arguing against: you filtered out the less reasonable options (e.g. hot air balloon or telekinesis) and kept the most reasonable options (e.g. walking or driving).

Dude. I wrote it down in 30 seconds. I thought of the 1st 3 examples that came to mind. They happened to be realistic. Maybe that's because I think people using logic are trying to be realistic. Maybe you are over analyzing and missing the forest for the trees. Are you a staff member?

 

[God lover]

Peace be on you.
The same reality will appear differently to an observer who watches through Hubble telescope and to the observer who watches with simple sight, both will think they see the whole picture.

But there is an absolute reality, matching perfect observer is required.

Your using a mode of transport will depend on several conditions; availability, resources, time, mood etc.

Good point about logic requiring all knowledge to be all true. (Paraphrase okay?)

 

[God lover]

What mode of travel?

Your post still looks the same. It says "edited" at the bottom, but it still only lists taking the bus, walking, or driving.

It now says, "the opener". So that you know the question is posed to the door opener... not the person who can't remember how they got there. Lol. I am laughing.

I will try to clean up my OP better before I post next time.

 

[Shad]

Good point about logic requiring all knowledge to be all true. (Paraphrase okay?)

Bad point about logic as pointed out in my explanation. GL and D are confusing deductive logic with all logic which is typical of how humans think using inductive logic. Which is often confused with deductive logic. GL and D also confuses perpective with logic as per observing something from different points of view. It is the complete lack of logic as a tool in relation to the example used. Questioning perspective as reliable is the first step in reason and using logic not the end result.

Inductive logic does not require certainty of 100% or absolutes.
Inductive logic is a form of logic
Therefore logic does not require all knowledge to be true, 100% certainty or absolutes

 

[God lover]

Bad point about logic as pointed out in my explanation. GL is confusing deductive logic with all logic which is typical of how humans think using inductive logic. Which is often confused with deductive logic.

Inductive logic does not require certainty
Inductive logic is a form of logic
Therefore logic does not require all knowledge to be true

Right. Your right. I forgot so quickly.

So, let me see if I got this straight. Logic can be a made up scenario, with no truth, however, if the reason is sound because no individual point contradicts another, then it is a sound argument? It may be used to test one idea. It is a tool humans have made.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okay. So if we assume information our logic won't necessarily have truth. Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that logic is a key tool to leading us to truth, but that (as it is a system of inference rules) it can lead any premise to basically any conclusion. That's why logicians distinguish between validity and soundness. And not all premises are equally well supported.

 

[DawudTalut]

Good point about logic requiring all knowledge to be all true. (Paraphrase okay?)

Agree

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dude. I wrote it down in 30 seconds. I thought of the 1st 3 examples that came to mind. They happened to be realistic. Maybe that's because I think people using logic are trying to be realistic. Maybe you are over analyzing and missing the forest for the trees.

No, but maybe I guessed badly at where you're trying to go with this thread. Here's what I figured you're trying to set up for your argument:

- When it comes to getting to someone's house and the possibilities are walking, driving, and taking the bus, it isn't reasonable to declare one possibility as "the most logical" and use this to reject the other two.

- Similarly, when it comes to explaining other things, it isn't reasonable to declare the possibility without God "most logical" and use this to reject God.

Am I right?

Are you a staff member?

I haven't been an active staff member for a while. We used to have "mod on sabbatical" and "Admin Emeritus" positions to identify the inactive staff members, but the new forum software doesn't support this.

 

[Shad]

So, let me see if I got this straight. Logic can be a made up scenario, with no truth, however, if the reason is sound because no individual point contradicts another, then it is a sound argument? It may be used to test one idea. It is a tool humans have made.

No hypothetical scenarios only show the validity of an argument. That the premises follow logically, are relational, thus create a conclusion which is as valid. For example if Bob was a blonde then the argument is invalid. Bob and redheads have nothing in common within the argument thus the conclusion could be right but not based on the argument present. Soundness covers if the premises are true. This is using deductive logic. When using inductive logic premises only need to be highly probable as by definition. So if the majority of redheads are dumb then the likelihood of Bob being dumb is more probable then not. However such argument are hedged using modifiers such as "majority", "likeihood" "probable", etc. Soundness is not part of inductive reasoning, it is replaced by "supported"

 

[Willamena]

I'm just trying to point out that you're doing the thing you're apparently arguing against: you filtered out the less reasonable options (e.g. hot air balloon or telekinesis) and kept the most reasonable options (e.g. walking or driving).

He's not arguing against, he's asking a question.

 

[savagewind]

There are a number of logical explanations for the same reality.

If I show up at your house, logically I could have taken the bus, walked or driven my car.

Should the door opener assume they know which is the most logical way?

The door opener should assume nothing. Asking is OK. Then the door opener chooses to believe or not believe the answer. The traveler might say in jest, "air balloon". But most people would not believe it. There is no logic in assuming a way I think.

People assume God's word says that God's Kingdom is for destroying all other kingdoms. Daniel 2:44 Is that logical that God should prepare every kingdom for destroying them? I do not think so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's not arguing against, he's asking a question.

How about we let God Lover say for himself what his intent is?

 

[dust1n]

There are a number of logical explanations for the same reality.

If I show up at your house, logically I could have taken the bus, walked or driven my car.

Should the door opener assume they know which is the most logical way?

When people use "logic" or "logically" they are often doing so colloquially and not using the actual formal system of logic.

There are three kinds of logic. The first is inductive reasoning, and the second of these are abductive reasoning. But we can ignore these for now because they lack the confirmation power of deductive reasoning.

The important thing to know about logic is that it is a means taking premises that can be assumed to be true and using them to legitimatize another claim.

Example.

P1: All unmarried men are bachelors.
P2: I'm an unmarried man.

Therefore, I can logically conclude with a great deal of certainty that I am a bachelor.

Conclusion: I am a bachelor.

Logic is not saying with a 100% certainty that dust1n is a Bachelor. What it is saying is that if those two premises are true (they may or may not be), then one can conclude that dust1n is a bachelor.

Now, imagine your computer, which is literally working with millions of premises that logically arrive at the software you use to access the internet and talk to me.

 

[God lover]

I'm saying that logic is a key tool to leading us to truth, but that (as it is a system of inference rules) it can lead any premise to basically any conclusion. That's why logicians distinguish between validity and soundness. And not all premises are equally well supported.

Well said

 

[God lover]

No, but maybe I guessed badly at where you're trying to go with this thread. Here's what I figured you're trying to set up for your argument:

- When it comes to getting to someone's house and the possibilities are walking, driving, and taking the bus, it isn't reasonable to declare one possibility as "the most logical" and use this to reject the other two.

- Similarly, when it comes to explaining other things, it isn't reasonable to declare the possibility without God "most logical" and use this to reject God.

Am I right?


I haven't been an active staff member for a while. We used to have "mod on sabbatical" and "Admin Emeritus" positions to identify the inactive staff members, but the new forum software doesn't support this.

No, but maybe I guessed badly at where you're trying to go with this thread. Here's what I figured you're trying to set up for your argument:

- When it comes to getting to someone's house and the possibilities are walking, driving, and taking the bus, it isn't reasonable to declare one possibility as "the most logical" and use this to reject the other two.

- Similarly, when it comes to explaining other things, it isn't reasonable to declare the possibility without God "most logical" and use this to reject God.

Am I right?


I haven't been an active staff member for a while. We used to have "mod on sabbatical" and "Admin Emeritus" positions to identify the inactive staff members, but the new forum software doesn't support this.

 

[God lover]

Thank you for coming clean.

Here's why I posted this question.

It seems like we can all use logic to justify our beliefs. There can be false truth claims backed up by a variety of logical explanations.

I beleive evolution is a logical explanation of why we and everything are here. I think a creator is a logical explanation of why we are here. My point is that logic can only take us so far before we need something else to find truth. We will never take our hands off the edge of the pool if we can't go where our logic won't let us.

I beleive we should think logically. It's a great gift. We should use discernment in all our experiences. At some point we need to find truth in our experience and let the endless logical circlés whirl away in theoretical land. We can reach out and grab them when we need them.

 

[Willamena]

I beleive evolution is a logical explanation of why we and everything are here.

No, it's just a biological explanation of the changes that occur in lifeforms over generations.

I think a creator is a logical explanation of why we are here. My point is that logic can only take us so far before we need something else to find truth. We will never take our hands off the edge of the pool if we can't go where our logic won't let us.

I beleive we should think logically. It's a great gift. We should use discernment in all our experiences. At some point we need to find truth in our experience and let the endless logical circlés whirl away in theoretical land. We can reach out and grab them when we need them.

And how do we do that?

 

[Skwim]

It should be pointed out that formal logic, logic often taking the form of a syllogism

all M is P
S is M
______________
Therefore: S is P

​

only deals with validity, not truth. Any truth that arises is dependent on the truth of the premises. For instance, take the following:

All the presidents of the USA have been male
James Monroe was a president of the USA
_____________________________________
Therefore: James Monroe was a male
​

This argument is both valid and true. Whereas the exact same form:

All the presidents of the USA have flown in an airplane
James Monroe was a president of the USA
____________________________________________
Therefore: James Monroe flew in an airplane.
​

is valid but untrue. Not all presidents have flown in an airplane. What makes it valid is its form. This particular form is sometimes known as categorical figure 1, or AAA-1, or BARBARA. (Altogether, there are 15 valid forms.)

M P
S M
___
S P (M stands for middle term, P for predicate, and S for subject)
​

Now take an argument that has the form

M P
S P
____
S M
​

This is invalid, which can readily be seen if we plug in specific terms.

All wine is a beverage
Pepsi is a beverage
_________________
Therefore: Pepsi is a wine.​

Both premises are true but because the form of argument is not valid it can't be considered a valid argument. However, this doesn't mean an invalid argument can't have a true conclusion.

All wine is a beverage
Merlot is a beverage
_________________
Therefore: Merlot is a wine.
​

The "Therefore" is crossed out because the conclusion doesn't logically follow. It just happens to be true.

The things is, if the premises are true a valid argument will always produce a true conclusion, not just sometimes.

​