Logic requires Faith

[Jayhawker Soule]

Take ten sheep away from a herd of twenty sheep and you will have ten sheep left. But that only holds true so long as we ignore all the ways in which the sheep are not equal to each other.

And what he did with Monica depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[McBell]

You are not going anywhere with this logic....
Logic understands that the statement is not meant to be taken literally..

Reading the OP my first thought is "this doesn't make a lick of sense".
Then I saw it is in the Philosophy Section and realized it does not have to make any sense to be accepted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reading the OP my first thought is "this doesn't make a lick of sense".
Then I saw it is in the Philosophy Section and realized it does not have to make any sense to be accepted.

If all philosophy made sense, then many
philosophers would be out of a job.
This is much like resistance to answering the
ultimate question about life, the universe, &
....you know.

 

[osgart]

Logic always depends on known values with evidence and verification to be of any use in inference. Where does faith come in other than inductive probability and likelihoods? Logic is best served working within known parameters. Logical argument alone outside of what is known is just guessing with a heavy dose of intuition. Logic alone can hypothesize but without a reliable test, or core facts to build inferences on, what have you?

 

[Echogem222]

Logic always depends on known values with evidence and verification to be of any use in inference. Where does faith come in other than inductive probability and likelihoods? Logic is best served working within known parameters. Logical argument alone outside of what is known is just guessing with a heavy dose of intuition. Logic alone can hypothesize but without a reliable test, or core facts to build inferences on, what have you?

If all of your knowledge is actually false, then logic is no longer logical. Many of us assume that having awareness means we're aware, but this could just be an effect of awareness, much like how a deception can make something seem to be true, the effect of awareness could just be a mental trick, we have no way of knowing since we don't have understanding of everything, which is why everything requires faith, even logic.

 

[Quintessence]

I dunno if I have much to add to this thread other than to field the observation that one of the major challenges of philosophy throughout the ages has been to defeat skepticism and put it to rest so that we may live whatever it is we find to be "the good life." There have been different answers throughout those ages to the enemy that is skepticism, ranging from couching things in deductive reasoning to instead relying only on empirical observation. Regardless of how one wrestles with metaphysical and epistemological questions, at some point one must simply make a decision about what to trust or "put our faith in" so to speak. There's always some axiomatic assumption that simply must be granted as true to defeat the bane that is skepticism and develop a functional worldview.

 

[Echogem222]

I dunno if I have much to add to this thread other than to field the observation that one of the major challenges of philosophy throughout the ages has been to defeat skepticism and put it to rest so that we may live whatever it is we find to be "the good life." There have been different answers throughout those ages to the enemy that is skepticism, ranging from couching things in deductive reasoning to instead relying only on empirical observation. Regardless of how one wrestles with metaphysical and epistemological questions, at some point one must simply make a decision about what to trust or "put our faith in" so to speak. There's always some axiomatic assumption that simply must be granted as true to defeat the bane that is skepticism and develop a functional worldview.

I completely agree with you, which is why for me, I have faith in my religion/philosophy, Flawlessism, which I came to create and have faith in through my experiences in life.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Example: The Paradox of the Literal and Figurative

Imagine someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." In traditional logic, if we take this statement literally, we might analyze it as follows:

How does this indicate that logic requires faith? It simply means that logic cannot deal with figurative statements. It can only deal with literal statements.

By your reasoning, math requires faith too. Because if someone says, "I ate a million hamburgers at that restaurant yesterday" (when she in fact only consumed 13)... there would be a problem with the math. EXAMPLE: There is only enough ground beef in the coolers to make 80 or so burgers.

80 - 1,000,000 = -999,920 [DOES NOT COMPUTE] such a thing (her eating a million hamburgers is mathematically impossible.

Traditional logic, without considering the non-literal use of language, leads to a misinterpretation. In other words, we need awareness to know it's not meant to be taken literally. And just like awareness is needed to understand something like that correctly, it's also possible that all of reality exists differently to than the way we think it does.

Logicians ARE aware of the problems that the ambiguities of language present. For that reason, there are several fallacies that deal with JUST that.

But I still don't see where faith comes in. Can you elaborate on that, OP?

For example: EQUIVOCATION

 

[osgart]

If all of your knowledge is actually false, then logic is no longer logical. Many of us assume that having awareness means we're aware, but this could just be an effect of awareness, much like how a deception can make something seem to be true, the effect of awareness could just be a mental trick, we have no way of knowing since we don't have understanding of everything, which is why everything requires faith, even logic.

It's effectiveness, and results in producing desired outcomes in most subjects areas is a strong clue that humanity and logic is on to something factual. Logic is used to make predictions that turn out to be accurate, which to me employs little faith.

If someone wants to use logic to discover the fundamental nature of reality with a very large percentage of unknowns then they might put faith into their assumptions, but only to subsequently test those assumptions, and see if things in effect turn out to be workable.

It is very stunning, and amazing all the things logic can do that people rely on its accuracy so much.

I can't prove that I exist, but maybe posting on RF is evidence that I do exist. We all use logic to determine such things. The less faith you need, the better the logic is. Growing up I used to think in absolute terms, but now I'm used to thinking in degrees of confidence according to knowns.

 

[Echogem222]

How does this indicate that logic requires faith? It simply means that logic cannot deal with figurative statements. It can only deal with literal statements.

By your reasoning, math requires faith too. Because if someone says, "I ate a million hamburgers at that restaurant yesterday" (when she in fact only consumed 13)... there would be a problem with the math. EXAMPLE: There is only enough ground beef in the coolers to make 80 or so burgers.

80 - 1,000,000 = -999,920 [DOES NOT COMPUTE] such a thing (her eating a million hamburgers is mathematically impossible.




Logicians ARE aware of the problems that the ambiguities of language present. For that reason, there are several fallacies that deal with JUST that.

But I still don't see where faith comes in. Can you elaborate on that, OP?

For example: EQUIVOCATION

Because you need awareness to use logic, that example I gave expresses that quite clearly, but if our 'awareness' doesn't actually have the effect that we believe it does, if we don't actually exist, and if everything we thought was true through our awareness is actually false, then logic would be false as well. So because that possibility exists is why logic requires faith to believe it works in the way it seems to.

 

[Echogem222]

It's effectiveness, and results in producing desired outcomes in most subjects areas is a strong clue that humanity and logic is on to something factual. Logic is used to make predictions that turn out to be accurate, which to me employs little faith.

If someone wants to use logic to discover the fundamental nature of reality with a very large percentage of unknowns then they might put faith into their assumptions, but only to subsequently test those assumptions, and see if things in effect turn out to be workable.

It is very stunning, and amazing all the things logic can do that people rely on its accuracy so much.

I can't prove that I exist, but maybe posting on RF is evidence that I do exist. We all use logic to determine such things. The less faith you need, the better the logic is. Growing up I used to think in absolute terms, but now I'm used to thinking in degrees of confidence according to knowns.

Through just having faith that logic exists, so many other things will also be true by extension, and we need to put less effort into believing, but if we could put zero effort into anything, then we wouldn't be able to have faith in logic (we'd also probably be dead or soon to be since logic seems to be required to live very long). You've done nothing to me to prove that logic does not require any faith, just less faith than some things. That is why in a general sense having faith in logic is more reasonable than many other belief systems.

My religious and philosophical belief, Flawlessism uses the same type of faith, in other words, just having faith in 1 thing which causes so many other things to be true by extension.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Because you need awareness to use logic,

But don't you need awareness to use any human mental faculty? Including faith?

but if our 'awareness' doesn't actually have the effect that we believe it does, if we don't actually exist, and if everything we thought was true through our awareness is actually false, then logic would be false as well.

Yes. I see what you mean.

Logic is a "garbage in, garbage out" affair. It is much like math in that, if you use math to try to calculate how many apples you have, an error on one side of the equal sign will lead to an error on the OTHER side of the equal sign. (Provided your math was done correctly!)

But if there are no errors in one's premises, and the logic of the expression is sound. Then the conclusion must be true. None of that requires faith. Some logical premises do not contain errors. If you deny that than you are burdened with arguing that all statements are erroneous. That's an entire different issue on its own and has nothing to do with logic. Aside from that, if all statements are erroneous... so are all your criticisms of logic!

Some propositions (or premises) might require faith. But that's not logic's fault. If it is a fault at all, it is a fault of the author of the argument. Any statement can be a logical premise. What matters is the conclusion derived from such a statement or statements.

 

[siti]

A. Premise 1: The person claims they could eat a horse.

B. Premise 2: Eating an entire horse is humanly impossible due to its size and the limitations of human appetite and digestion.

C. Logical Conclusion: The statement is false or absurd.

Wrong! The logical conclusion is "I need to buy a larger fridge".

In other words, all things require faith.

A bit more seriously, we have to assume that the universe is logical...don't we? But I'm not sure that assumption is equivalent to faith...we may lack ultimate proof that the universe is logical (and indeed, for all we know, ultimately it may not be), but we have a fairly long record of interpreting things successfully by the use of logic. Is that faith? Perhaps, but it is at least "partially sighted" faith I think.

 

[Echogem222]

But don't you need awareness to use any human mental faculty? Including faith?

If you know something is true, that means there can be no possibility of yourself being wrong, but I've explained why that never applies to anything, which is why it would seem that faith is required for anything, but since I'm explaining that from not actually knowing anything for certain, I naturally can't say I know faith is required for anything with certainty, but I don't have the ability to conclude anything differently, so I don't.

Yes. I see what you mean.

Logic is a "garbage in, garbage out" affair. It is much like math in that, if you use math to try to calculate how many apples you have, an error on one side of the equal sign will lead to an error on the OTHER side of the equal sign. (Provided your math was done correctly!)

But if there are no errors in one's premises, and the logic of the expression is sound. Then the conclusion must be true. None of that requires faith. Some logical premises do not contain errors. If you deny that than you are burdened with arguing that all statements are erroneous. That's an entire different issue on its own and has nothing to do with logic. Aside from that, if all statements are erroneous... so are all your criticisms of logic!

Some propositions (or premises) might require faith. But that's not logic's fault. If it is a fault at all, it is a fault of the author of the argument. Any statement can be a logical premise. What matters is the conclusion derived from such a statement or statements.

If one has faith that logic is real, then by extension, many other things are true which don't seem to require extra faith. Having faith in logic is like creating a foundation you can build things off of, but if that foundation is not based on certainty, then everything built on top of it lacks certainty... I believe that's what you're saying, and if so, we agree.

 

[Echogem222]

Wrong! The logical conclusion is "I need to buy a larger fridge".

Ha, right, I should have thought of that.

A bit more seriously, we have to assume that the universe is logical...don't we? But I'm not sure that assumption is equivalent to faith...we may lack ultimate proof that the universe is logical (and indeed, for all we know, ultimately it may not be), but we have a fairly long record of interpreting things successfully by the use of logic. Is that faith? Perhaps, but it is at least "partially sighted" faith I think.

Not all belief systems are the same. As I just explained in a previous comment: "If one has faith that logic is real, then by extension, many other things are true which don't seem to require extra faith. Having faith in logic is like creating a foundation you can build things off of, but if that foundation is not based on certainty, then everything built on top of it lacks certainty"

But other belief systems aren't even that straightforward, some require a person to have faith in many things, so many things in fact, that it lacks reasonability to have faith in for those who have faith in logic. My belief system, Flawlessism is pretty much as straight forward as faith in logic is, in that it requires faith in just 1 thing (aside from logic and science).

 

[vulcanlogician]

If you know something is true, that means there can be no possibility of yourself being wrong

That is not a definition of the word knowledge that many people adopt. I tend to say, like some other folks, that knowledge is a "justified, true, belief." I know my car is parked in my driveway. I'm not looking at it right now. (I am in the office on my PC.) But I know it's there.

Let's talk about "justified" and "belief" before we get to "true."

I'm certainly justified in believing that my car is in my driveway. I left it there. In fact, I looked out my window this morning and saw it. It is unlikely that someone stole it without me hearing them.

But if it WERE the case that someone took my car away without my knowing, than THAT would invalidate my "knowledge" because that would make it untrue that my car is in my driveway.

The case of belief is simply a technical fact of the matter. It is impossible for me to KNOW one thing, yet BELIEVE otherwise.

I think you are attacking an epistemological position, but you are (wrongly) phrasing it as an attack on logic.

 

[Echogem222]

That is not a definition of the word knowledge that many people adopt. I tend to say, like some other folks, that knowledge is a "justified, true, belief." I know my car is parked in my driveway. I'm not looking at it right now. (I am in the office on my PC.) But I know it's there.

Let's talk about "justified" and "belief" before we get to "true."

I'm certainly justified in believing that my car is in my driveway. I left it there. In fact, I looked out my window this morning and saw it. It is unlikely that someone stole it without me hearing them.

But if it WERE the case that someone took my car away without my knowing, than THAT would invalidate my "knowledge" because that would make it untrue that my car is in my driveway.

The case of belief is simply a technical fact of the matter. It is impossible for me to KNOW one thing, yet BELIEVE otherwise.

I think you are attacking an epistemological position, but you are (wrongly) phrasing it as an attack on logic.

There are different types of knowledge, but to say you know something is true to someone who does not share the same faith as you, means you know it for certain, whereas belief means you don't know for certain, but you think something is true. In modern society, a person can say they know something, but not actually mean that, instead meaning they believe something to be true. I don't expect that people are going to change that any time soon, so I don't really care so long as people understand the context of why they're saying they know something.

Absolute knowledge is a "justified, true, understanding" something which seems to be impossible given that even logic requires faith. But I would argue that most knowledge falls under the category of knowledge through faith (faith-based knowledge). So, if someone has faith in something, they can then have knowledge within that faith which may not require more faith to believe is true, and if two people share the same faith, then they don't need to convince the other person of their faith, and they can say things like they know something is true to each other and be justified for doing so assuming it doesn't require more faith within that faith.

In society, people often get used to saying they know something is true, because they're around people who share their faith. Based on what you're saying, I'd argue that you're not close to people who don't believe anything can be known, otherwise you'd likely get into conflicts with them over simple things, and already understand why your argument about knowledge doesn't work.

 

[Echogem222]

In the example you gave, logic can understand that a man can not possibly eat a whole horse in one go. Perhaps you have to find a better example and/or not being so vague.

There have been many people in this thread who have understood my points made, so I would kindly suggest reading over those to better understand the context of what I've been saying.

 

[siti]

But other belief systems aren't even that straightforward, some require a person to have faith in many things, so many things in fact, that it lacks reasonability to have faith in for those who have faith in logic.

I'm not following how this relates to the claim that "logic requires faith"...

Logic is all about "reasonability" - if a statement is illogical, then by definition it lacks "reasonability" - i.e. it does not stand to reason. That's pretty much the whole point of logic...

Although one could have faith in something that was illogical, not all faith statements are contrary to logic.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm not following how this relates to the claim that "logic requires faith"...

Logic is all about "reasonability" - if a statement is illogical, then by definition it lacks "reasonability" - i.e. it does not stand to reason. That's pretty much the whole point of logic...

Although one could have faith in something that was illogical, not all faith statements are contrary to logic.

Logic requires knowledge, and knowledge we gain through awareness, but if our awareness just makes us seem like we have awareness of things, even ourselves, then it stands to reason that all of logic could be false. In other words, the premise of logic itself could be illogical.