Logic requires Faith

[siti]

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.

Nah! Even if our entire existence is an illusion, logic is (at the very least) part of that illusion and remains a reliable guide for understanding the illusion (even if we don't know that's what it is). The whole point of logic is to determine what is necessarily true (or false of course) in terms of logic...there is no way that "all of logic" can be "false" because without logic there is neither true nor false. Logic just is.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There are different types of knowledge

Absolutely. I was kinda starting from there rather than finishing there. Btut, yeah, we agree on that.

Absolute knowledge is a "justified, true, understanding" something which seems to be impossible given that even logic requires faith.

It's okay to be an absolutist about knowledge. But you have some explaining to do if you are. How is "justified, true understanding" differentiated from "justified, true, belief"? Can you give a real-world example?

 

[Echogem222]

Nah! Even if our entire existence is an illusion, logic is (at the very least) part of that illusion and remains a reliable guide for understanding the illusion (even if we don't know that's what it is). The whole point of logic is to determine what is necessarily true (or false of course) in terms of logic...there is no way that "all of logic" can be "false" because without logic there is neither true nor false. Logic just is.

We understand logic through our awareness, but if our awareness isn't the way we think it to be, then logic may not be logical. Just like the example I gave of logic not being correct in regard to non-literal statements, it's possible that we lack awareness that all of reality exists differently than we think it does, in other words, just like a non-literal statement can only be understood correctly when understanding the context correctly, the context of reality may be different from the way we assume it to be. There could be something greater than logic that exists, which is able to disprove logic.

You have a reason to have faith in logic based on what you've been saying, as it seems to serve as a reasonable guide for you, that's fine, but you still need faith to use it.

 

[Echogem222]

Absolutely. I was kinda starting from there rather than finishing there. Btut, yeah, we agree on that.



It's okay to be an absolutist about knowledge. But you have some explaining to do if you are. How is "justified, true understanding" differentiated from "justified, true, belief"? Can you give a real-world example?

If it is true that the world exists as it seems to, and somehow, someone gained true awareness of this, then they would know the world correctly.

If someone has faith in a belief system, and others also have faith in the same belief system, then they would know how things truly are in that belief system according to their faith.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm not asking about the difference between faith and knowledge. I'm asking about "Justified true, belief" VS "justified, true, understanding."

Whatever we can determine as an answer may relate to the larger point of "knowledge vs. understanding."

 

[Echogem222]

I'm not asking about the difference between faith and knowledge. I'm asking about "Justified true, belief" VS "justified, true, understanding."

Whatever we can determine as an answer may relate to the larger point of "knowledge vs. understanding."

Now I'm confused what you're talking about. If you're trying to ask me how a person can truly know something without faith, the only way I can understand is if the laws of reality itself changed to allow for such a thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Each morning I get up, walk into the kitchen, and toggle the light switch in preparation for making the coffee.

The reasoned inference -- but not the certainty -- is that the light will turn on. If someone wishes to stretch the term "faith" apply to this inductive reasoning, fine. At least such sophomoric games tend to be benign.

 

[MikeF]

Though I presume we all understand the basics of logic which are commonly known, there is a fairly well-known hole in logic that many choose to ignore:

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:

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.

However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. 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. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.

But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.

To my mind, what you are calling awareness, I would call experience. What you seem to be calling faith, I would refer to as reasoned expectation based on experience. Faith, as I see it, is either synonymous with "hope" and "wish" or it refers to a belief that is held despite a lack of supporting evidence or despite conflicting and contrary evidence.

 

[libre]

Reminds me of: The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
I hate to affirm Popper in near any context, but I think his argument stands up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Reminds me of: The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
I hate to affirm Popper in near any context, but I think his argument stands up.

That's a discussion I'd love to have with you, perhaps with wine and cheese.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

"Society" oh ****. I better get my act together and serve this thing. I'm sure this concept has all our best interests at heart. So, let me be sure what you mean. If I have a moral inclination, I should compare it against society's inclination. And if there is any difference, I should defer to society.

 

[Echogem222]

"Society" oh ****. I better get my act together and serve this thing. I'm sure this concept has all our best interests at heart. So, let me be sure what you mean. If I have a moral inclination, I should compare it against society's inclination. And if there is any difference, I should defer to society.

Sort of. Expecting society to change in a way that would be better in the long run is not something to expect to happen any time soon, and trying to change the norm quickly would likely just backfire.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Sort of. Expecting society to change in a way that would be better in the long run is not something to expect to happen any time soon, and trying to change the norm quickly would likely just backfire.

But I DON'T equate my own sense of rightness or justice to whatever society's whims happen to be at the moment. I agree that society has whims. One only need to look at history. At one time society thought one thing: eg- "slavery is permissible." And at another time, society thought something different- "slavery is wrong."

I'm in the camp that seeks universals. Like- "slavery was wrong all along. Even when society thought it was okay."

Therefore, I don't really care about shifts in public opinion on the matter. Such shifts in public opinion don't count as arguments for me, even when they work in my favor. As they do with opinions on slavery. (At least in contemporary thinking.)

 

[Heyo]

Though I presume we all understand the basics of logic which are commonly known, there is a fairly well-known hole in logic that many choose to ignore:

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:

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.

However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. 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. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.

But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.

Solipsism, while not falsifiable, takes you nowhere. Just snap out of it. If you confine yourself to the axioms of logic and science - until proven to be invalid - you can reason yourself through the real and the abstract world just fine. And no-one, except other solipsists, will contradict you.

 

[Ajax]

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.

I suppose you could have said it simpler by saying that people can use different logic based on their own circumstances, i.e surroundings, upbringing, faith, location, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Though I presume we all understand the basics of logic which are commonly known, there is a fairly well-known hole in logic that many choose to ignore:

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:

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.

However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. 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. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.

But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.

I don't think that "faith" is the proper word to use here.

You seem to be extrapolating from what IMO is a simple acknowledgement that we are not omniscient.

We indeed are not, but we must be careful not to simply assume that there is someone else who is.

As @Heyo quite properly points out in the first page of this thread, solipsism ought to be discarded not out of "faith" but simply because it is a dead end.

 

[PureX]

But I DON'T equate my own sense of rightness or justice to whatever society's whims happen to be at the moment. I agree that society has whims. One only need to look at history. At one time society thought one thing: eg- "slavery is permissible." And at another time, society thought something different- "slavery is wrong."

I'm in the camp that seeks universals. Like- "slavery was wrong all along. Even when society thought it was okay."

Therefore, I don't really care about shifts in public opinion on the matter. Such shifts in public opinion don't count as arguments for me, even when they work in my favor. As they do with opinions on slavery. (At least in contemporary thinking.)

The point is that you must trust in your conclusion that slavery is wrong because you can't be certain that it is. Thus, you are acting on faith. And so is the person that concludes, by his logic, that slavery is not wrong. As are anyone that concludes anything by whatever logic or reasoning they employ. None of us can be certain of our accepted conclusions. They are but assumptions. And so we must accept and act on them in faith that our reasoning and our conclusions are correct.

 

[PureX]

I don't think that "faith" is the proper word to use here.

You seem to be extrapolating from what IMO is a simple acknowledgement that we are not omniscient.

Our lack of omniscience means that we can never be certain of anything we presume to be so. And because we cannot logically or honestly be certain, we are forced to act on our conclusions via faith.

We indeed are not, but we must be careful not to simply assume that there is someone else who is.

This has nothing to do with any such assumption. It's a simple fact that we are not omniscient and that we therefor can never be certain of our conclusions. Cause us to accept and act on those conclusion via faith.

As @Heyo quite properly points out in the first page of this thread, solipsism ought to be discarded not out of "faith" but simply because it is a dead end.

Solipsism is just another possible conclusion that one might accept or reject according to their own logical reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

Though I presume we all understand the basics of logic which are commonly known, there is a fairly well-known hole in logic that many choose to ignore:

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:

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.

However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. 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. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.

But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.

Which is why logical functions avoid using "the figurative" even in basic, informal logic.

"One" can also mean "a specific person," but you won't see that meaning used in maths, either.

Semantics and mathematics are separate magisteria.

The only articles of faith seem to be the laws of mathematics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Our lack of omniscience means that we can never be certain of anything we presume to be so. And because we cannot logically or honestly be certain, we are forced to act on our conclusions via faith.

You can call that faith, I suppose. You can even approach that uncertainty in ways that resemble some of the (several and varied) emotional stances associated with that word.

Me, I think that there are better, more accurate, less confusion-prone words to be used instead. Words such as "unavoidable uncertainty", which are not as inviting of arrogance.

This has nothing to do with any such assumption. It's a simple fact that we are not omniscient and that we therefore can never be certain of our conclusions. Cause us to accept and act on those conclusion via faith.

Again, that is just a bad and misleading word to use for such a thing. We may not be literally certain, but we have a duty to do the legwork to be reasonably sure instead of relying on "faith" - which can be difficult to distinguish from rather unhealthy emotional stances.

Solipsism is just another possible conclusion that one might accept or reject according to their own logical reasoning.

It is a possible conclusion. It is also a pragmatically useless one.