## User Tag List

1. I just had to write a paper on non-Aristotelian logic.

Instead of attempting a summary, I'll just quote the mathematician Alonzo Church on the topic:

We do not attach any character of uniqueness or absolute truth to any particular system of logic. The entities of formal logic are abstractions, invented because of their use in describing and systematizing facts of experience or observation, and their properties, determined in rough outline by this intended use, depend for their exact character on the arbitrary choice of the inventor. We may draw the analogy of a three dimensional geometry used in describing physical space, a case for which, we believe, the presence of such a situation is more commonly recognized. The entities of the geometry are clearly of abstract character, number as they do planes without thickness and points which cover no area in the plane, point sets containing an infinitude of points, lines of infinite length, and other things which cannot be reproduced in any physical experiment. Nevertheless the geometry can be applied to a physical space in such a way that an extremely useful correspondence is set up between the theorems of the geometry and observable facts about material bodies in space. In building the geometry, the proposed application to physical space serves as a rough guide in determining what properties the abstract entities shall have, but does not assign these properties completely. Consequently there may be, and actually are, more than one geometry whose use is feasible in describing physical space. Similarly, there exist, undoubtedly, more than one formal system whose use as a logic is feasibile, and of these systems one may be more pleasing or more convenient than another, but it cannot be said that one is right and the other is wrong.
From: A Set of Postulates for the Foundation of Logic. Annals of Mathematics 33 (1932): 346-366

2. Having had my own struggle with faith/logic, I've come to believe that those who rely strictly on logic for proof, as I used to, are more prejudicial than they would like to consider themselves to be.

Some of the same people who denounce faith, when asked if they believe in true love, would say "yes." It, however, cannot be proven logically and is strictly anecdotal. It isn't even demonstrable or observable when one considers the varying subjective definitions and motivations in behaviors. It is not measurable and must be take on "faith" trusting the word of those who've experienced it.

3. Originally Posted by Seanan
Having had my own struggle with faith/logic, I've come to believe that those who rely strictly on logic for proof, as I used to, are more prejudicial than they would like to consider themselves to be.

Some of the same people who denounce faith, when asked if they believe in true love, would say "yes." It, however, cannot be proven logically and is strictly anecdotal. It isn't even demonstrable or observable when one considers the varying subjective definitions and motivations in behaviors. It is not measurable and must be take on "faith" trusting the word of those who've experienced it.
i exactly agree with everything u said. its frustrating when people who rely completely on logic fail to see that prejudice, so it is very refreshing that u do.

for balance though, although some faith is useful and necessary (even facts require some amount of faith unless they are deduced first hand), it becomes dangerous and unethical to base definitive answers, beliefs or legislation on faith alone

4. It doesn't matter if faith is not based on logic. Faith can help you out in many ways that are immeasurable by any logical system.

#### 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