And your point is –? — 180 Proof
Or does it correspond to reality because our observed physical reality seems to follow some level of consistency as well? — Paulm12
Science can't offer a reason for existence. The magical appearance of something out of complete nothing is reason-devoid and as such an irrational explanation. — Hillary
In this case, the idea of “reason” I had in mind were things like modus ponens, avoiding what are defined as local fallacies, drawing conclusions from new or existing information, etc. But it is a sort of fuzzy concept IMO. — Paulm12
But to the point of the OP, what do you think reason is, and should we trust it — Philosophim
If I want to know the reason of existence, I wanna know why there is a universe with life in it. I think I have a reasonable(!) cosmological model, but that still offers no reason. It just can't have come into existence out of the blue. — Hillary
Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives.
— 180 Proof — Harry Hindu
Yes. And there must be a reason for this. — Harry Hindu
You tell me. What makes something work vs. not work, or more reliable vs less reliable?More than that it works – why? — 180 Proof
Still, all the great things in life, like painting, photography, dance, love, physics, etc. get a kind of load then in the sense that science can't explain them. — Hillary
Around and around we go.Adequacy of means to ends. — 180 Proof
In saying that something works or is reliable is also saying it is adequate, so what makes something work vs. not work, reliable vs. unreliable or adequate vs. inadequate if it does contains some element of truth vs. false - as in it follows from what is the case vs. what is not the case?You tell me. What makes something work vs. not work, or more reliable vs less reliable? — Harry Hindu
I will update.the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic
Or does it correspond to reality — Paulm12
Not on any grand scale, no. — bongo fury
I will update.
In order to use logic to understand our world, we in some way have to assume our world is logically intelligible and predictable. — Paulm12
In other words, what our our reasons for trusting reason/logic? — Paulm12
the reality of X or any of its properties — javra
:roll: Once more, explicitly, for the slow ones way in the back ...Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives.
— 180 Proof
Yes. And there must be a reason for this. — Harry Hindu
:clap: :100: Thanks! (Harry needs this spoon-feeding.)Reason is inescapable in the context of discursive thinking insofar as to question reason, reason is required. — Janus
the reality of X or any of its properties — javra
Properties and relations are where correspondence gets too grand for me. They are too much like verbs and adjectives to be plausible as contenders for ontological commitment along with X, Y and Z. And they aren't required for asserting truths about X, Y and Z. — bongo fury
Obviously if we are doing philosophy, we try to use reason/rationality to make an argument and avoid contradictions. However is reason simply, as the postmodernists would argue, just another normative way of looking at the world that creates a power structure?
Note that I’m using reason as defined as:
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic
Or does it correspond to reality because our observed physical reality seems to follow some level of consistency as well? In order to use logic to understand our world, we in some way have to assume our world is logically intelligible and predictable.
In other words, what our our reasons for trusting reason/logic? — Paulm12
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.