SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
You're saying:
"For all x that is rationalizing, x is [the use of] logic."
But since we haven't mapped the human thought process to a comprehensive model which proves that, your statement is unjustified.
Also, you haven't rigorously defined exactly what 'logic'. Even if we could represent human inferential techniques in a strict and comprehensive model, it wouldn't change the fact that all arguments relating to "human affairs" must ultimately rest on a value judgment.
You've never adequately defended your thesis against this issue.
What is logic? We know that certain laws of mathematics lead to properly functioning formulas.
In logic we know that certain procedures lead to valid arguments, and others to invalid. Respectively, we call the former logical in colloquial terms and the latter illogical.
Thus logic is the proper model for objective reasoning.
We know enough about logic to solve the most basic problems of life and even complicated problems of mathematics, physics and philosophy.
We know enough about logic to properly solve problems concerning human affairs. Because we can apply objective reasoning to human affairs, we need not make the decisions with respect to human affairs on whim, or value judgment.
There is no doubt that value judgment has something to do with human affairs, but it must not be pure value judgment. In other words, we can logically analyze our likes and dislikes, see if they need to be changed or acted out upon, and if so how we go about both. We need not just act out on our passions because we are far more rational than that.
I totally disagree with this.
____________________
statement: No human being can live beyond the age of 165 years.
counter-statement: No human being has ever lived past the age of 164 years.
____________________
We haven't come up with good systems to account for why we intuitively feel that the counter-statement is a good defeater for the statement. Also, use of probability and Bayesian systems runs into the Lottery Paradox and sundry other issues.
You're also not taking into account major breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, whose revelations about consciousness and the time-space continuum are revolutionizing the way we think about how human thought interacts with the world and which modes of reasoning are the best... particularly since on a Planck plane many of our most cherished basic laws of logic (like the law of non-contradiction) are not universally valid.
To be fair, quantum physicists weren't the first to discover this... Nagarjuna expounded on the tetralemma back in the 1st millennium. There were others too...
_________________________
I am even more lost now.
I do not see the relevance of any of this to the notion that we can figure out some things with logic.
In order to know why exactly no human being has lived over 165 requires that we collect the factual information. This does nothing to vitiate the logical form in itself.
Logical form well executed leads to valid arguments.
Logical form loaded with factually accurate information leads to sound arguments. Logical form loaded with inaccurate information leads to unsound arguments.
Inaccurate information has little to do with invalidity, or only with unsoundness. Arguments that we deem to be sound today can be deemed unsound later, but this does nothing to tell us that logic is an unreliable method of investigation. For sound argument, it is only a matter of taking care of attributes external to reasoning in itself.
We haven't come up with good systems to account for why we intuitively feel that the counter-statement is a good defeater for the statement. Also, use of probability and Bayesian systems runs into the Lottery Paradox and sundry other issues.
This is the one that I find most puzzling of all. It is called laws of thought. Laws of proper reasoning, or logic. This is the law of non-contradiction, it is one of the laws of thought.
I either have a watch around my arm or I do not. I cannot both have it not and have it. What could be easier to prove?