is logic universal or personal?

[MoonWater]

Does logic depend on one's personal perspective or is it universal? Or could logic be mainly personal with some universal truths in it? or vice versa? Or is it neither personal nor universal? if so then what is it? Is it equally personal and universal?

 

[Sunstone]

Logic is as universal as arithmetic and mathematics. 2 + 3 = 5 is always true and 4 - 3 = 7 is always false no matter who says it, no matter who understands it, and no matter who doesn't understand it.

 

[MoonWater]

Logic is as universal as arithmetic and mathematics. 2 + 3 = 5 is always true and 4 - 3 = 7 is always false no matter who says it, no matter who understands it, and no matter who doesn't understand it.

Yet there are many instances where logic seems to be dependant on one's personal interpretation. Take..... erggh, I'm having a brain fart right now and can't remeber the guys name, but he postulated that one could either believe in God and lose nothing when he died(as he would either go to hevean or cease to exist) or not believe in God and risk losing everything(as he would either go to HELL or cease to exist). While this argument is not considered very "logical" today in this guy's mind and in the minds of many others at the time it seemed very logical.

 

[blackout]

I think it is possible to be completely logical,
and yet still be completely wrong in assesment,
depending on the initial set of "givens" the "logic" was based(biased) upon.

"pure formulations" of "perfect universal logic",
also can reveal as many different (and even correct?) "conclusions" ,
as there are people with differing perspectives.
(which would be everyone)

 

[Sunstone]

Yet there are many instances where logic seems to be dependant on one's personal interpretation. Take..... erggh, I'm having a brain fart right now and can't remeber the guys name, but he postulated that one could either believe in God and lose nothing when he died(as he would either go to hevean or cease to exist) or not believe in God and risk losing everything(as he would either go to HELL or cease to exist). While this argument is not considered very "logical" today in this guy's mind and in the minds of many others at the time it seemed very logical.

No doubt there are people who believe 2 + 3 = 4, but their belief doesn't make 2 + 3 = 4 a sound statement. Simply because Pascal believed his "wager" was sound, while others believed it wasn't sound, is no reason to assert that the soundness of his wager changes depending on what people believe about its soundness.

 

[MoonWater]

No doubt there are people who believe 2 + 3 = 4, but their belief doesn't make 2 + 3 = 4 a sound statement. Simply because Pascal believed his "wager" was sound, while others believed it wasn't sound, is no reason to assert that the soundness of his wager changes depending on what people believe about its soundness.

But if that's the case then how do we determine if something is logical or not? And how do we know that it is truly logical by it's own merit and not simply because we consider it such?

 

[lunamoth]

Logic is not about what is 'true.' It's about making correct conclusions based upon your assumptions.

 

[Malach1]

Logic is sustained by reality- and each man has his own reality and thus his own logic to explain his own reality

 

[Sunstone]

But if that's the case then how do we determine if something is logical or not? And how do we know that it is truly logical by it's own merit and not simply because we consider it such?

Here's a simple bit of logic:

Premise #1: If p then q.
Premise #2: p.
Conclusion: Therefore, q.

Can you see how that form is logically valid?

 

[blackout]

Here's a simple bit of logic:

Premise #1: If p then q.
Premise #2: p.
Conclusion: Therefore, q.

Can you see how that form is logically valid?

yes. a logic(al) equation.
true in form.
but if we disagree on the original premise?....

 

[Sunstone]

yes. a logic(al) equation.
true in form.
but if we disagree on the original premise?....

It doesn't matter. The logic of the form remains regardless of whether the premises are true or false. That's logic.

 

[blackout]

ok, so then the logic might be universal,
while the premise/conclusions are still personal.

I'm not sure I understand the question of the thread?
or have I answered it? (personally that is, not universally)

 

[MoonWater]

ok, so then the logic might be universal,
while the premise/conclusions are still personal.

I'm not sure I understand the question of the thread?
or have I answered it? (personally that is, not universally)

Let me put the question another way and maybe it will make more sense. If something is logical is it's logic dependant on whether or not someone thinks it is logical? That is would it still be logical even if no one saw it as such?

Does that make more sense?

 

[YmirGF]

It doesn't matter. The logic of the form remains regardless of whether the premises are true or false. That's logic.

I have to side with Dr. Phil on this one, as there is a difference between pure logic and fanciful supposition.

 

[Ozzie]

yes. a logic(al) equation.
true in form.
but if we disagree on the original premise?....

Well you have no way of stating it such that you prove logical inconsistency unless you use the language of logic.

Logic is an area I want to investigate knowing virtually nothing. It interests me how new ideas can be described through the language of logic. It seems to me ideas are universal once expressed in such a language.

 

[MoonWater]

I have to side with Dr. Phil on this one, as there is a difference between pure logic and fanciful supposition.

But how does one differentiate between the two? What basis do we have to determine if something is logical or not? Often the "fanciful supposer" will see his "supposings" as "pure logic" and the one who considers himself a "pure logician" will be seen as a "fanciful supposer". So how can you know if you are a "supposer" or a "logician"? Upon what basis do you draw your conclusions?

 

[blackout]

I did take a level one logic class in college,
so I do realize there are logic "axioms" or "forumulas",
though I certainly no longer remember what they are.
Still, I think that having once gone through them thoughtfully,
has made me a better thinker in general.
Less likely to be thrown off by bizzarre and erronious "conclusions" and statements.

I also LOVE logic puzzles.
There is no other type of "word" puzzle kind of thing I like to do.
But logic puzzles are fun.
A kind of mathematical elimination of possibilities
arrived at by careful observation/analysis of given facts.
(though the facts are made up, for the sake of the puzzle)

Yes, I would say that logic equations, like mathematics equations,
certainly APPEAR to me, to be universal.

What you plug into a logic equation, however, is a whole nother subject.

 

[MoonWater]

I did take a level one logic class in college,
so I do realize there are logic "axioms" or "forumulas",
though I certainly no longer remember what they are.
Still, I think that having once gone through them thoughtfully,
has made me a better thinker in general.
Less likely to be thrown off by bizzarre and erronious "conclusions" and statements.

I also LOVE logic puzzles.
There is no other type of "word" puzzle kind of thing I like to do.
But logic puzzles are fun.
A kind of mathematical elimination of possibilities
arrived at by careful observation/analysis of given facts.
(though the facts are made up, for the sake of the puzzle)

Yes, I would say that logic equations, like mathematics equations,
certainly APPEAR to me, to be universal.

What you plug into a logic equation, however, is a whole nother subject.

But what makes those "axioms" or "formulas" logical? Why those and not some others? On what basis can we consider anything as "logical"?

 

[!Fluffy!]

have to agree with Phil and Paul here. Logic is universal as math is universal. to me it's the foundation of rational thought and debate.

btw, it is especially fun to browse the forums in search of logical fallacies.

and here is a resource for constructing a logical argument

 

[MoonWater]

have to agree with Phil and Paul here. Logic is universal as math is universal. to me it's the foundation of rational thought and debate.

btw, it is especially fun to browse the forums in search of logical fallacies.

But what basis does one have to call something logical if it is universal? How can one determine that something is truly logical and not simply assumption on their own part(assuming logic is universal)?