User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 104

Thread: Faith vs. Logic

  1. #11
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post


    Probable is a dilemma of perspective. Possibility is the physical execution of the probable - in this, both are linked.

    Faith is unavoidably blind - to entertain a system of belief without empirical proof is to believe without falsifiable premise.

    Yet, to summarily dismiss because we lack empiricism is to miss the point of scientific enquiry altogether.


    Thus, faith is not a question of logic; faith is fundamentally alogical.
    What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

    (oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)

  2. #12
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

    (oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)
    Brilliant!

    I was going to PM you on INTPc, but was confident in your eventual "migration".


    One cannot have "faith" in logic, as "faith" presupposes a lack of observable (data culled from empirical observation - as is the case with (I presume) your nod towards the theorems within logic - informal (linguistics); formal and symbolic (among others - even when dealing with the purely hypothetical (i.e., propositional calculus), we still ascribe to a pattern of event - a redundant, independently-verified data structure) variables as a substitution for the standard elements found within "logical" arenas (science; mathematics; etc.)).

    "Faith" in logic is an obfuscation in terminology.

  3. #13
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    Yeah, he might be relatively, or even markedly, intelligent and physically attractive to boot, but he ain't no Einstein. (no offense Night)
    I must've missed this remark before.

    No offense taken, CC. (I do have to update my resume now, though...)


    It doesn't surprise me that our expectations in thought differ; our thinking styles seem radically different.

  4. #14
    Senior Member nemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    <3
    Socionics
    wtf
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

    (oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)
    (Ok I wrote this, and realized it was one massive tangent that didn't address your question at all. But I'm going to post it anyway. That's just how I am.)

    This is an extremely interesting question in my perspective.

    A lot of people don't realize how arbitrarily systems of logic can be defined. Technically, you just make up rules when you move P's and Q's around and put => in between them. But what's weird is that only a few seem to be meaningful. What makes them meaningful? That's a slippery question.

    But it remains that if you come up with something like 4 = 5, you can prove anything. And I do mean anything.

    E.g: 4 = 5.

    Taking 3 from both sides gives 1 = 2.

    CC and I are two.

    However, 2 = 1. CC and I are one person.

    Hence I am CC!

    Another: Dinosaurs exist.

    I define 1 "nemo" of time to be 80 million years.

    4 = 5 => 0 = 1.

    The present is 0 nemos away in time. Thus, it is 1 nemo away. Dinosaurs existed 80 million years ago. Hence, dinosaurs exist now.

    Just a side note, but it's fun to see what batshit insane stuff you can prove with 4 = 5! It's interesting to think about how much logical consistency is inherent in human cognition -- e.g. syntactic rules of language seem to be largely universal. I wonder if that's indicative of some innate "logical system" that is some kind of prerequisite to the mind, and how much of it would be responsible for what we're capable of precieving, and if the "logical system" was different how it'd effect our perception of the world. Or if the universe just possesses the logic itself.

    Also weirder -- truth values are typically thought of as either given a 0 (false) or 1 (true) status. However, you can come up with systems of logic where there's more than just 0 and 1 truth values -- as in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... , n.

    What's fascinating to me is that some of these 0, 1, 2 logic-systems also work. They're used in quantum mechanics quite a bit, the rules of which were established empirically.

    There were two articles, "Is logic empirical" by Hilary Putnam and another (same title) by M. Dummett. I suggest you look them up if you have any interest in this.

    But the question remains: why does logic work so well? In some ways, I think it is a bit "empirical", and we just choose the systems of logic that don't insult our conception of reality with "4 = 5" scenarios, and the ones that don't are the ones we are used to. Maybe these are hard-wired into our brains and are part of the reason language works etc. I dunno.

    Getting way the f*** off track so I'll stop.

    Note: stop medicating yourself with nyquil and bourbon.
    You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

  5. #15
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Nicely said, Nemo.

  6. #16
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Brilliant!

    I was going to PM you on INTPc, but was confident in your eventual "migration".


    One cannot have "faith" in logic, as "faith" presupposes a lack of observable (data culled from empirical observation - as is the case with (I presume) your nod towards the theorems within logic - informal (linguistics); formal and symbolic (among others - even when dealing with the purely hypothetical (i.e., propositional calculus), we still ascribe to a pattern of event - a redundant, independently-verified data structure) variables as a substitution for the standard elements found within "logical" arenas (science; mathematics; etc.)).

    "Faith" in logic is an obfuscation in terminology.
    Are you saying that we can only have 'faith' in those entities that are incapable of entering into logical relationships?

  7. #17
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Are you saying that we can only have 'faith' in those entities that are incapable of entering into logical relationships?
    Well-worded, my friend


    My premise is that it isn't possible to mix faith and logic. To have "faith" in entities that are a/logical is secondary to the approach. One could conceivably have "faith" in anything if one decides to accumulate information without redundant, testable data. One could decide that anything is likewise "logical" if one can offer empirical data to support his theme - neither system presumes truth.

    Both are systems of belief that rely on variant methods of observation and evidence gathering to arrive at a conclusion. Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.

    Ultimately, they exist (frictionless) as classification structures that help us understand our world.

  8. #18
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nemo View Post
    Just a side note, but it's fun to see what batshit insane stuff you can prove with 4 = 5! It's interesting to think about how much logical consistency is inherent in human cognition -- e.g. syntactic rules of language seem to be largely universal. I wonder if that's indicative of some innate "logical system" that is some kind of prerequisite to the mind, and how much of it would be responsible for what we're capable of precieving, and if the "logical system" was different how it'd effect our perception of the world. Or if the universe just possesses the logic itself.

    Also weirder -- truth values are typically thought of as either given a 0 (false) or 1 (true) status. However, you can come up with systems of logic where there's more than just 0 and 1 truth values -- as in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... , n.

    What's fascinating to me is that some of these 0, 1, 2 logic-systems also work. They're used in quantum mechanics quite a bit, the rules of which were established empirically.

    There were two articles, "Is logic empirical" by Hilary Putnam and another (same title) by M. Dummett. I suggest you look them up if you have any interest in this.

    But the question remains: why does logic work so well? In some ways, I think it is a bit "empirical", and we just choose the systems of logic that don't insult our conception of reality with "4 = 5" scenarios, and the ones that don't are the ones we are used to. Maybe these are hard-wired into our brains and are part of the reason language works etc. I dunno.

    Getting way the f*** off track so I'll stop.

    Note: stop medicating yourself with nyquil and bourbon.
    Multi-valent logics assume bivalence. If anything is intelligible, then bivalence is necessary (and, thus, so is the law of excluded middle).

    If the mind were incapable of making a distinction between A and non-A, then the mind could not make a distinction between being and non-being.

    will expand later, (hopefully)... at work... must go...

  9. #19
    Procrastinating
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.
    The reason why, the more logical one is, the more difficult faith becomes... its not for whimps or sissies. One long before I was born said that in order to have faith, you must become as a child. That's hard on the ego... especially for those deeming themselves "intelligent." Just my experience.... I had to face my own arrogance.

  10. #20
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night
    Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.
    I would argue that logic deals with the intangible. Logic is the study of formal languages, transformation rules, consistency, completeness, argument, validity, etc. It does not concern the study of tangible objects in the universe, such as air, water or stones, but what does or does not follow from particular statements or propositions, irrespective of the facts. (The semantic interpretation of a set of symbols of a language need not even concern truth and falsity, for example).
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] xNTP vs. xNTJ In Logic and Debate
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 09:33 PM
  2. Zizek on Lacan - Masculine vs Feminine Logic
    By Il Morto Che Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-01-2012, 08:46 PM
  3. Empiricism vs. Logic
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 02:22 AM
  4. MBTI Faith and the Ideal vs the Real
    By Kalach in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 08:35 PM
  5. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO