Is logic limited?

[EcK]

Oh, what does a silly INTP know about logic?

INTP logic is good, IF you assume that the ways in which humans can perceive things to work is the more significant factor compared to how things actually play out.

I'm not attacking anybody, just putting this out there, but 1) he was probably trying to be funny AND feel superior about it in a very clumsy way
2) he didn't actually ever test as intp so it wouldn't be fair to associate him with the other intps when he's actually more like an inxp. (again, i'm not taking sides)
3) ath, cut on the steroids/coffee. (see, this is me showing i'm not taking sides)

 

[EcK]

Waiting for a logician to tackle this question

sowy i'm supposed to be working/go buy some food

 

[Athenian200]

I'm not attacking anybody, just putting this out there, but 1) he was probably trying to be funny AND feel superior about it in a very clumsy way
2) he didn't actually ever test as intp so it wouldn't be fair to associate him with the other intps when he's actually more like an inxp. (again, i'm not taking sides)
3) ath, cut on the steroids/coffee. (see, this is me showing i'm not taking sides)

I know, I was just making fun, and trying to feel superior/funny as well.

Yeah, I've probably been drinking too much coffee, though. Halla and Jaguar getting onto me about what I say is usually the first sign, and they've been pounding me lately. Sigh, I'm going to have SUCH a headache, though.

Anyway... I think that human beings may not be able to conceive of anything outside of logic, so it might be irrelevant whether it's limited, because we are likely limited in the same way.

 

[Oaky]

Then its not limited. If we derive all our theoretical ideas and understanding of the external world through reasoning, it is impossible for us to conceive of things which fall outside logical reasoning. Any phenomena which appears to defy our understanding, hence logic, must be due to a lack of sufficient data, or gaps in reasoning.

And lack of sufficient data limits logic doesn't it? Therefore if data was limited then human logic would be limited too.

Therefore, no. The difference between Ti and Te is Lawliet versus Light
Waiting for a logician to tackle this question

Well they both have almost the same thinking process don't they?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Logic just facilitates the construction of cogent arguments.

I don't really see how it can be limited.

It is either used or not used.

The only question then is, to what extent is it used?

 

[EcK]

didn't we go through all this already ?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Too lazy to read the beginning of the thread. Just putting in my $.02.

This is all I'm going to say and I won't get dragged through the mud over it.

Later.

 

[INTP]

even if you have faulty information that leads to wrong understanding, that doesent mean that logic was used faulty. logic only combines info and you can combine wrong info in the right way, even tho it might not lead to right solution

and no way im inxp

 

[krunchtime]

And lack of sufficient data limits logic doesn't it? Therefore if data was limited then human logic would be limited too.

It stands to reason that if we had sufficient data, we would be able to attain logical nirvana. Therefore, said limitation is not a property of logical reasoning per se, but due to technical limitations. Thus you can't conclude that logic itself is limited, but you can conclude that technological capabilities are limited.

Lack of sufficient data limits the exercise of logic not the potential of logic.

Well they both have almost the same thinking process don't they?

Nope. Light: 1. All criminals must die 2. All murderers are criminals. Therefore, all murderers must die. 3. Light =/ Murderer, Light = God of the new world

 

[Oaky]

It stands to reason that if we had sufficient data, we would be able to attain logical nirvana. Therefore, said limitation is not a property of logical reasoning per se, but due to technical limitations. Thus you can't conclude that logic itself is limited, but you can conclude that data-gathering technological capabilities are limited.

Alright then how about how far we can go with a logical analysis. That would be limited due to lack of knowledge.
And how about the rules of logic. Are the rules of logic limited?

Nope. Light: 1. All criminals must die 2. All murderers are criminals. Therefore, all murderers must die. 3. Light =/ Murderer, Light = God of the new world.

Yes, he is like that isn't he.

 

[krunchtime]

Alright then how about how far we can go with a logical analysis. That would be limited due to lack of knowledge.
And how about the rules of logic. Are the rules of logic limited?

Yes, he is like that isn't he.

Opps. Sorry I edited my post because it was too long and unwieldy. Does this question still hold?

 

[INTP]

And lack of sufficient data limits logic doesn't it?

no, lack of data limits understanding

 

[Oaky]

^ I see. I understand what you mean. But how about the rules of logic?

Opps. Sorry I edited my post because it was too long and unwieldy. Does this question still hold?

Yes, well my second question.

 

[krunchtime]

^ I see. I understand what you mean. But how about the rules of logic?
Yes, well my second question.

Logic is linear reasoning. If your data is incomplete, definitions are inaccurate, premise is skewed & etc, its very easy to arrive at the wrong conclusion. The rules are limited (sparse, for lack of better word) but I believe necessarily so.

 

[INTP]

^ I see. I understand what you mean. But how about the rules of logic?

never heard about those. but if id need to make some rules for logic right now, id say that if you get to wrong conclusion with right info you are using faulty logic. if you get to wrong conclusion with faulty info, it doesent mean that logic was faulty, but it could have been. if you get to right conclusion with wrong info, logic was faulty, even tho it led to right conclusion

 

[krunchtime]

never heard about those. but if id need to make some rules for logic right now, id say that if you get to wrong conclusion with right info you are using faulty logic. if you get to wrong conclusion with faulty info, it doesent mean that logic was faulty, but it could have been. if you get to right conclusion with wrong info, logic was faulty, even tho it led to right conclusion

There are rules for logic. Where's the logician?!

 

[Oaky]

Alright, anyway, assuming it does. Logic is linear reasoning. If your data is incomplete, definitions are inaccurate, premise is skewed & etc, it is very easy to arrive at the wrong conclusion.

But this is what logic is for. Coming to the right conclusion. But it is coming to a conclusion using rules that are limited.

@INTP: what krunchtime said

 

[krunchtime]

But this is what logic is for. Coming to the right conclusion. But it is coming to a conclusion using rules that are limited.

Okay.... so what is our quarrel? Right conclusion= understanding, wrong conclusion= limitations in understanding. Since logic= right OR wrong conclusions, logic= limitations in understanding? This doesn't hold. May I venture that no conclusion= limitations in understanding?

p.s. excuse me if my understanding is not quite correct. please explain more

 

[Oaky]

Okay.... so what is our quarrel? Right conclusion= understanding, wrong conclusion= limitations in understanding. Since logic= right OR wrong conclusions, logic= limitations in understanding? This doesn't hold. May I venture that no conclusion= limitations in understanding?

p.s. excuse me if my understanding is not quite correct. please explain more

I never said logic = limitations of understanding. I asked if logic has limits. Understanding something means that something is within the boundaries of logic.

 

[krunchtime]

I never said logic = limitations of understanding. I asked if logic has limits. Understanding something means that something is within the boundaries of logic.

Alright cool. Thanks for clarification.

Because you define the function of logic as coming to the right conclusion. Hence, if you come to the wrong conclusion using logic, it indicates limitations in process of logical reasoning? Does it not indicate limitations in the human being (for using the inaccurate data/ definitions/ premise)?

Edit: This is essentially the same as our first argument. Anyway, I just want to add that it is entirely possible for Te to be more objective than Ti, depending on the context and situation.