Does logic equal truth?

[Shadow Wolf]

No, as an argument that is logically sound is not necessarily factually correct.

 

[God lover]

And how do we do that?

How do we let go of the edge of the pool?

The pool edge represents logic/the brain/our thoughts.

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.

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.

Thanks Dustin.

And thanks to everyone who pitched in with clarification about logic.

I can tell that I have some work to do in order to become better acquainted with the formal meaning of logic.

I have heard a little about it already but admit I used more as a lay term meaning reasonable or realistic.

Very interesting and I will probably read this thread a few times.

 

[God lover]

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.

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 produce 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, a valid form of argument will always produce a true conclusion if the premises are true, not just sometimes.

​

Great. I think I get it. A valid argument is logical. But not necessarily true. An argument is true if all the premises are shown to be true and it is a valid argument?
Anyway, I think you show the difference between valid and factual (true).

I could be wrong about which type of logic is being used. I should go back and read the other responses. But thanks for taking the time!

 

[God lover]

And how do we do that?

Pray and listen with the heart. Or pay attention to the spirit. Let the mind slow down. We can re-engage the mind at any moment.

I feel that logic can lead us to God (and also away from God) but the only way to know God is through a real and tangible interaction.

 

[Deidre]

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?

logically all three are possible. but logic (to me) leads to a verifiable explanation. religious people will claim that they logically have come to determine the existence of a deity, but without the basis of reality, not sure how they are accomplishing that.

 

[God lover]

logically all three are possible. but logic (to me) leads to a verifiable explanation. religious people will claim that they logically have come to determine the existence of a deity, but without the basis of reality, not sure how they are accomplishing that.

Interesting. I feel that a number of explanations are logical about reality, including evolution and the big bang without a creator. They could all be made logical in an argument. So I agree with you on that I think. It would be nice to agree on something.

Your comment is a good one, I have been trying to point out that knowing God will come from experience rather than philosophy or logic. Philosophy and logic might lead us toward or away from God, but experience is where we will know God.

I would say it takes place in the heart. I definitely beleive God is real and capable of being present and known by us in spirit (ours and God's).

 

[Deidre]

Interesting. I feel that a number of explanations are logical about reality, including evolution and the big bang without a creator. They could all be made logical in an argument. So I agree with you on that I think. It would be nice to agree on something.

Your comment is a good one, I have been trying to point out that knowing God will come from experience rather than philosophy or logic. Philosophy and logic might lead us toward or away from God, but experience is where we will know God.

I would say it takes place in the heart. I definitely beleive God is real and capable of being present and known by us in spirit (ours and God's).

I was once a theist (Christian) so I feel ya. I thought my experiences were real, but they weren't based on logic. I happen to think faith is built from emotions, and experience as you say. That's perfectly fine, but I think theists get tripped up when they try to suggest that their experiences are provable and therefore...logical.

 

[God lover]

I was once a theist (Christian) so I feel ya. I thought my experiences were real, but they weren't based on logic. I happen to think faith is built from emotions, and experience as you say. That's perfectly fine, but I think theists get tripped up when they try to suggest that their experiences are provable and therefore...logical.

Well, I hear you too. It's a logical conclusion on your part .

I would point out that the heart/spirit is where I think God meets us in the most personal way. But God can also meet us in the mental and physical as well. Physical: as in miracles and mental: as in visions dreams (maybe other ways). It's all a miracle, but when I say miracle I'm talking about when he steps in and interviens the physical laws of this world, usually in healing or brining people together or stopping a harsh event.

(Doesn't mean he does it everytime).

Could I just warmly encourage you to keep your eyes open for such things. It might not hurt to leave the door open.

A friend

 

[dust1n]

Thanks Dustin.

And thanks to everyone who pitched in with clarification about logic.

I can tell that I have some work to do in order to become better acquainted with the formal meaning of logic.

I have heard a little about it already but admit I used more as a lay term meaning reasonable or realistic.

Very interesting and I will probably read this thread a few times.

No problem. I'm always happy to help since logic was missing from my entire K-12 education-- it took me a while to pick up on it and make sense of it, and I still find it difficult. But here is a free logic textbook I keep on reference when I go back to read over stuff.

http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

http://www.fecundity.com/logic/download.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

He is laying the foundation for a ridiculous argument in defense of his theology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

As noted above ...

 

[FearGod]

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?

Logic says that there should be a method that you had used to reach the house, but it is irrational or illogical
to say that i reached the house in a fraction of a second by using magic.

 

[God lover]

Logic says that there should be a method that you had used to reach the house, but it is irrational or illogical
to say that i reached the house in a fraction of a second by using magic.

Maybe someone in the philosophy feild could comment on this. I will put the idea forward that this scenario is logical.

If I can do magic
And I use it to get around
Then I could have used it to get to the house

Logical, yes. Backed up by facts, I don't think so. Probable? Well, if I did use magic to get around, I probably wouldn't take a bus.

Philosophy is fun. How am I doing? These guys have been teaching me about logic as it is in formal circles. I think I am getting better at this , but looking for more clarification here.

Maybe we need to know the clear definition of rational vs logical.

I am realizing that logic is backed up by premises and the validity of those premises plays a role. There is so much we don't know, that as we get to higher levels of thought our grounds for proof fall away from us more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am realizing that logic is backed up by premises and the validity of those premises plays a role..

No. Logic is not "backed up by premises." Logic is applied to premises. The general rule is:

... garbage in, probable garbage out.​

There is so much we don't know, that as we get to higher levels of thought our grounds for proof fall away from us more.

Therefore? What we do know is that the appeal to ignorance is a worthless basis for any claim.

 

[Shad]

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.

Not really. Many people do not use logic in any form. Justified true beliefs require evidences howevermany people have little or selective evidence available. At worst their idea of evidence is subjective. A failure in logic is when a false claim is accepted as true.

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.

The form is based on inductive logic. The later is based on false truth claims and poor logic. Once people give up on reason and logic they open the door to any and everything as possible. From the most well reheared guru to that crazy man with a cardboard sign on the road screaming about end time.

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.

Sure but try convincing others that the cardboard man is right.

 

[Shad]

Maybe someone in the philosophy feild could comment on this. I will put the idea forward that this scenario is logical.

If I can do magic
And I use it to get around
Then I could have used it to get to the house

It is valid but not sound as magic is not an axiom or evident. Logical includes soundness or supported.

Maybe we need to know the clear definition of rational vs logical.

It is not a versus between two concepts. Logic is a tool of reason not separate from it. The issue here is that people think "reason/rational" means any reason they can come up with. That is not reason it is misusing a word which has a vast concept behind it since they are ignorant of said concept.

I am realizing that logic is backed up by premises and the validity of those premises plays a role. There is so much we don't know, that as we get to higher levels of thought our grounds for proof fall away from us more.

No, as our knowledge increases the soundness of claims fall away. For example the idea that say bad/good weather is caused by the gods became unsound once we figured out what causes weather patterns.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Shad]

No, as an argument that is logically sound is not necessarily factually correct.

Sorry you are completely wrong. Soundness is based on facts thus the conclusion would be factually true. I think you mean in reality true as opposed to theories. Evolution is a theory thus not factually true under deduction, only induction which treats it as justified or probable. Whereas a bachelor argument is solely based on facts rather than theories. Thus it would be factually true. You are mixing inductive and deductive logic, soundness and support, along with conclusions.

 

[Shad]

No problem. I'm always happy to help since logic was missing from my entire K-12 education-- it took me a while to pick up on it and make sense of it, and I still find it difficult. But here is a free logic textbook I keep on reference when I go back to read over stuff.

http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

http://www.fecundity.com/logic/download.html

Neither logic nor philosophy were K-12 courses during my youth. I believe it is a mistake to push these subjects into post-secondary education. One reason is the k-12 education's purpose is to introduce common knowledge which can be applicable to most career paths. However philosophy and logic are the ground work of every scientific field we have so introducing it prior to one's commitment to a specific study path would be a benefit. It is also applicable to most trade-skills but is not as apparent.

 

[Shad]

Correct. To be factually correct the premises must be true. From post #40

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.
​

The form of this argument (AAA-1) is logically sound (valid), but its conclusion is untrue.

Which is valid not sound. Valid is not soundness, it a validity. Soundness is separate from being valid. Valid is of form. Soundness is of truth.

Redhead are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb

It is valid but the soundness is in question.

People are conflating valid with being sound due to the common definition not the terminology in logic

 

[Skwim]

Evolution is a theory thus not factually true under deduction, only induction which treats it as justified or probable.

Wrong. Evolution is considered a fact, a scientific fact. Where theory comes in is in explaining how it works.