Logic

[oacnmt]

I just joined. I am looking for some postings on the following question: ' Can logic stand on its own?' Help please.

[technomage]

Actually, instead of searching (I'm not sure we've had any such conversation before), feel free to jump in and start the conversation.

Oh, and welcome aboard. One of our fine moderator staff will be long shortly with a greeting and the "nickle tour."

[Kelp]

I moved the thread to a more appropriate forum and gave you your welcome thread here.

[shunyadragon]

I just joined. I am looking for some postings on the following question: ' Can logic stand on its own?' Help please.

Logic can only stand alone as logic. A valid argument can be true or false.

[NeilUnreal]

Godel had a thing or two to say about this question.

-Neil

[shunyadragon]

Godel had a thing or two to say about this question.

-Neil

I like Godel!!!

[ENeGMA]

I just joined. I am looking for some postings on the following question: ' Can logic stand on its own?' Help please.

Logic is tautologous.

Can tautologies stand on their own?

[shunyadragon]

Logic is tautologous.

Can tautologies stand on their own?

tautology - A statement that is true based on its logical form and conformity to the rules of logic.

[NeilUnreal]

I like Godel!!!

If Godel liked those, and only those, at Princeton who didn’t like themselves, did he like himself?

-Neil

[ENeGMA]

tautology - A statement that is true based on its logical form and conformity to the rules of logic.

Yes.

So I just said "Logic is [logic]."

Which is a tautology, and thus which is true. I was attempting to be witty while making a point, that logic is "true" simply because "truth" is defined in logic as 'following the rules of logic.'

So logic can 'stand on its own' precisely because of its own circularity, it's own tautologous nature, wherein tautology is a form of logic itself.

[ENeGMA]

If Godel liked those, and only those, at Princeton who didn’t like themselves, did he like himself?

-Neil

It depends.

Did he shave that morning?

[oacnmt]

I am lost in this TW forum. Where do I find an icon, within a post, to reply.

[oacnmt]

Never you mind; I missed it at the very bottom of each post in tiny writing.

[Trusty]

I just joined. I am looking for some postings on the following question: ' Can logic stand on its own?' Help please.

In a sense yes.

Are you asking if logical is logical?

I do not think that this has actually been answered to everyone's satisfaction (there are critics for everything). So while Logic can "stand on its own" according to itself, it doesn't make it logical in an absolute, higher status than itself sense. Very few people have been willing to go all Socrates on logic. Few, myself included, do not see any reason to for all the reasons listen in the various replies.

However, there are critics...

Nietzsche "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world." is an example of such a critic.

But assuming that "being logical" has no higher status than simply "being logical", then yes, logic can be "logical" insofar as that has value.

The right question is does logic have value/usefulness?

The answer: absolutely yes it does.

I agree with shunyadragon that "Logic can only stand alone as logic. A valid argument can be true or false. "

Just don't get caught up in thinking that Logic can or will always yield Truth and you will be fine. When it comes to explanatory power and "truth-seeking"...consider:

Logic is useful for some things...not all things.
Science is useful for some things...not all things.
Religious Doctrine/Theology is useful for some things...not all things.
History is useful for some things...not all things.
Psychology is useful for some things...not all things.
Personal experience/revelation is useful for some things...not all things.
Apologetics is useful for some things...not all things.
Etc...

The problem is that many people get caught up in their pet specializations and lose a grip on reality (however defined).

Religious understanding explains some things, so the religious fanatic arrogantly asserts that only it explains all things.

The logician discovers that logic explains some things, then arrogantly asserts that only it can explain all things.

The scientist finds that science explains some things, and then arrogantly asserts that only it can explain all things...

So on and so forth.

So, take with a grain (or heaps) of salt that any and all truth can be found ONLY within following the principles of X discipline, and be VERY weary of people stating such nonsense. But you also must be careful to spot them, because they are also all too willing to selectively take what they want from other specialized fields ONLY when it conveniently backs up their own thinking already and then ignore and even chastise their opponents for making similar kinds of selections from other fields to back up their claims.

Though most people are reasonable enough to know that no field can stand on its own as the only path to discovering Truth or understanding about the world.

[oacnmt]

In a sense yes.

Are you asking if logical is logical?

I do not think that this has actually been answered to everyone's satisfaction (there are critics for everything). So while Logic can "stand on its own" according to itself, it doesn't make it logical in an absolute, higher status than itself sense. Very few people have been willing to go all Socrates on logic. Few, myself included, do not see any reason to for all the reasons listen in the various replies.

However, there are critics...

Nietzsche "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world." [B]If logic doesn't correspond to anything in the real world, then he is asking me to be irrational and assume that logic comes from something outside of reality?[/B] is an example of such a critic.

But assuming that "being logical" has no higher status than simply "being logical", then yes, logic can be "logical" insofar as that has value. Huge assumption: I can't go there. It is irrational.
The right question is does logic have value/usefulness? Why should I even ask that question?

The answer: absolutely yes it does. Why? Who says so?

I agree with shunyadragon that "Logic can only stand alone as logic. A valid argument can be true or false. " Only if I am irrational and accept logic as standing alone? I don't.

Just don't get caught up in thinking that Logic can or will always yield Truth and you will be fine. When it comes to explanatory power and "truth-seeking"...consider: Contradiction to me.

Logic is useful for some things...not all things.
Science is useful for some things...not all things.
Religious Doctrine/Theology is useful for some things...not all things.
History is useful for some things...not all things.
Psychology is useful for some things...not all things.
Personal experience/revelation is useful for some things...not all things.
Apologetics is useful for some things...not all things.
Etc... All assertions...I wil just reverse what you said and thus believe the opposite. Why not?

The problem is that many people get caught up in their pet specializations and lose a grip on reality (however defined). Whose reality?

Religious understanding explains some things, so the religious fanatic arrogantly asserts that only it explains all things. Arrogant statement.

The logician discovers that logic explains some things, then arrogantly asserts that only it can explain all things. I agree: it doesn't

The scientist finds that science explains some things, and then arrogantly asserts that only it can explain all things...Obviously not.

So on and so forth. Why not? If someone wants to go "so on and so forth'' whose to tell them they're wrong.
So, take with a grain (or heaps) of salt that any and all truth can be found ONLY within following the principles of X discipline, and be VERY weary of people stating such nonsense. But you also must be careful to spot them, because they are also all too willing to selectively take what they want from other specialized fields ONLY when it conveniently backs up their own thinking already and then ignore and even chastise their opponents for making similar kinds of selections from other fields to back up their claims. Why not? In whatever direction people want to explain things, it doesn't matter. It's all random anyway.
Though most people are reasonable enough to know that no field can stand on its own as the only path to discovering Truth or understanding about the world.

What or who is reasonable? Space? Matter? Me? You? What is reason? Who cares?