Is LOGIC the ultimate authority?

[Spurgeon]

All of this is very interesting you guys, but psychoanalyzing me is irrelevant to the topic, don't you think?
If you do think it's relevant, please explain.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Fuck the authority!

 

[oneirocriticism]

If you ask me any form of psychoanalysis is pretty freaking oppositional to a logical approach.

 

[tinker683]

What's interesting to me is that in order to demonstrate that logic isn't the ultimate authority, you must invoke it.

Also, No.

Also also, I concur that Lark is in fact the ultimate authority

 

[Coriolis]

Logic is a process, a tool, and its outputs are only as sound as its inputs (facts, assumptions) are valid. It cannot itself be an authority on anything, but whatever hopes or claims to be that authority would be wise to employ it.

From my favorite original series Star Trek:

McCoy: Life and death are seldom logical.
Spock: But attaining a desired goal always is.

 

[Mole]

Logic is a process, a tool, and its outputs are only as sound as its inputs.

Yes, Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO).

 

[Sniffles]

No - logic is not the ultimate authority.

 

[A window to the soul]

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?:

"Logic cannot be the ultimate authority.
If it were, we couldn't prove the laws of logic to be objectively authoritative in the first place, because we would have to assume they were authoritative in order to do so, which is circular reasoning."

Nice symantactics.

[symbolism + semantics + tactics = symantactics ]

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14).

 

[Sniffles]

Perhaps here's a better(abeit longer) quote on the issue:

Logic and truth, as a matter of fact, have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs. On the assumption that a man has two ears, it is good logic that three men have six ears, but on the assumption that a man has four ears, it is equally good logic that three men have twelve. And the power of seeing how many ears the average man, as a fact, possesses, the power of counting a gentleman's ears accurately and without mathematical confusion, is not a logical thing but a primary and direct experience, like a physical sense, like a religious vision. The power of counting ears may be limited by a blow on the head; it may be disturbed and even augmented by two bottles of champagne; but it cannot be affected by argument. Logic has again and again been expended, and expended most brilliantly and effectively, on things that do not exist at all. There is far more logic, more sustained consistency of the mind, in the science of heraldry than in the science of biology. There is more logic in Alice in Wonderland than in the Statute Book or the Blue Books. The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

G. K. Chesterton (Daily News, Feb 25, 1905)
​

I bolded the main last point for those who don't want to read the entire thing.

 

[Kalach]

Is authority the ultimate logic?

 

[A window to the soul]

For grins, let's say that God is the ultimate authority because it's logical to do so; but wait, our ultimate appeal in that rationale was to logic wasn't it? Therefore, LOGIC is the ultimate authority [or is it?]. The same could be said about anything and everything that's logical based purely on logic that leads us back to logic; it's an infinite loop. In sum, it's "logical" that "logic" is the ultimate authority, but don't over-analyze that point because you'll end up chasing your tail. Infinite loops are a product of logical illogic (aka, poor programming). Hint: infinite loops are terminated by the user. :] [Yes, the truth will set you free.]

 

[alcea rosea]

To the op:
Disagree. Because the logic of people fails and because it fails it cannot be the ultimate authority.

 

[Sniffles]

For grins, let's say that God is the ultimate authority because it's logical to do so; but wait, our ultimate appeal in that rationale was to logic wasn't it? Therefore, LOGIC is the ultimate authority [or is it?]. The same could be said about anything and everything that's logical based purely on logic that leads us back to logic; it's an infinite loop. In sum, it's "logical" that "logic" is the ultimate authority, but don't over-analyze that point because you'll end up chasing your tail. Infinite loops are a product of logical illogic (aka, poor programming). Hint: infinite loops are terminated by the user. :] [Yes, the truth will set you free.]

If we're going by Aristotle, then the primary mover aka "God" is indeed bound by the laws of logic. Within Christian or more specifically Catholic teachings, it gets more nuanced. IIRC, God isn't technically bound by logic or reason, but for God to act contrary to reason/logic would go against his essence.

 

[A window to the soul]

If we're going by Aristotle, then the primary mover aka "God" is indeed bound by the laws of logic. Within Christian or more specifically Catholic teachings, it gets more nuanced. IIRC, God isn't technically bound by logic or reason, but for God to act contrary to reason/logic would go against his essence.

I understand. Right or wrong, the idea, "LOGIC is the ultimate authority" is just like the inherent characteristic of an infinite loop that ensures any other logical condition will never be met. What's most annoying about this is that all logical arguments that state something else is the ultimate authority (true or false) will unconditionally send you back to "LOGIC is the ultimate authority".

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Logic does'nt send you in jail if you don't pay the taxes or don't join the military, logic don't spank you to punish you if you did something wrong.

However, you can't lust against it.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

To the op:
Disagree. Because the logic of people fails and because it fails it cannot be the ultimate authority.

The problem is not that the logic of people fails, but that people fails at being logic. A "personal logic" is the same thing than "a subjective impression" aka "a feeling".

 

[entropie]

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?:

"Logic cannot be the ultimate authority.
If it were, we couldn't prove the laws of logic to be objectively authoritative in the first place, because we would have to assume they were authoritative in order to do so, which is circular reasoning."

If possible, please explain your reasons.

The sentence makes no sense to me. Why do the laws of logic need to be authoritative to be proven ?

To me the answer is much easier: as it is with all systems, even logic cant stand human nature. Thats why something like fuzzy logic was invented.

The problem with all authoritative guideliners, may it be religion, logic, philosophy, natural science is always that they are detached from human nature. Religion is a morale code of conduct to minimize the damage a population could do to itself, logic is a concept that mainly deals with signal processing and routing so you can realize complex mathematical algorithms, it has as much to do with human nature as a banana with m-theory. Philosophy is the most closest to human nature in the equation, but since philosophy often lacks a connection to natural science or logic it is a difficult guideliner that needs a lot of critical reflection for your personal self. Natural science deals with the factual makeup of the human nature, it tho still has no abilities to interprete the subjective interpretation of the World by humans. Thats why the human brain is still a big mystery to natural science cause it doesnt really seem to work according to a boolean computer logic.

For me personally the greatest authority is human nature. I'd never preach something that would be in violation with human nature. Simple example: imagine there was a christian movement that would ban all brothels from major cities. Would you think that would be good for people or bad ? I'd think it would be bad and would lead to an increase in sex crimes. Does that thesis justify that poor woman have to prostitute themselves ? No it doesnt and thats what human nature logic is about. It is often a compromise between a bad thing and a worse thing.

I know that sort of logic isnt very satisfieing but maybe that is what its meant to be. Humans arent ever satisfied with anything. if you think about the bible and that you for doing good things can go to heaven at the end of your life. Do you think you would find it gratifieing to spend eternity into only one place, with the same fluffy and happy people around all day ? Do you think human nature would be happy with being happy all day ? I dont think so and thats basically my point.

Human nature isnt so much about finding answers, it is about finding more questions.

 

[alcea rosea]

The problem is not that the logic of people fails, but that people fails at being logic. A "personal logic" is the same thing than "a subjective impression" aka "a feeling".

Wouldn't argue with INTP about this subject.

 

[xisnotx]

Can anything be said to be an ultimate authority? Even god, supposedly, gives us authority over ourselves, albeit willingly, again supposedly, so even he isn't the ultimate authourity. And certainly if even god can be proven to not be the ultimate authourity, by his very nature, and the very nature of the concept of god is such that he transcends everything then logic falls well short of being the ultimate authority as logic falls well short of god and even god falls well short of ultimate authority, even if willingly, by his own admission (assuming free will). This by his own very nature, as has been presented to us at least.

So, no..even if you assume god, and certainly no if you dont. If god doesn't exist..then really humanity is little more than a function of nature, which we know is illogical since nature doesnt always favour the logical.

Also logic isn't an external process. It isn't a system of thought that is only valid if it leads to external consistency. Indeed, logic concerns itself with internal consistency. It's possible for something to be logical, and externally false. For example, it's logical for gravity to not exist, but, given context, it's false to say that it doesn't.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What do you mean by ultimate authority?

I mean, if you consider what is internally consistent, what does a better job of providing insight and revealing the truth more often than any other approach, I'd say logic, considering that logic includes all math and the scientific method. I'll really be damned if there's something a human being can wield that has a higher success rate.

The biggest issues comes up with values statements. Statements of good and bad. It's not that good and bad can't be synthesized through logic at all, I mean I think any one with decent ethics can do that. You should be capable of using logic to figure out that an action is likely to have consequences that will cause for more suffering than happiness. The problem is explaining why it's bad to cause more suffering than happiness. Values will take you down a logical rabbit hole unless you just draw the line somewhere with a foundational belief.

Keep in mind you do have to do this even with logic. At the bare minimum you must accept that there can be such a thing as a dichotomy of true and false before the rest of logic works (even maybe and null are just in reference to true and false). That might not seem like much of a demand, but it is an assumption never the less.

I, again, take the pragmatic approach. You can point out that an arbitration is behind logic, but I can point out than an arbitration is at the root of every approach, and I challenge you to find an arbitration that grows into a more effectives systems than logic.

EDIT: If you mean authority as in an influence over peoples' behavior, I'm going to say no. It is not at the psychological or sociological level. When individuals make decisions they let a lot of things other than logic guide their decisions, and logical behavior on the part of one person seems to only very roughly diffuse onto other people, even with the aid of communication.