What does it mean by "reasonable" if not "logical" in the classical sense? — Harry Hindu
It says reasonable precisely because reason does not reduce to mere logic. Otherwise it would have said logical. — Pantagruel
1) according to the rules of logic
his answer is perfectly reasonable — Harry Hindu
Then it presupposes a truth - that disagreements exist.Dialectic presupposes disagreement. — Pantagruel
Then your quibble is with the scribbles, and not what the scribbles are about?This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel
Which is to say that it contradicts other reasons that we have for believing that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places. Science says one thing, our senses say another. So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation?If it is logical that if A then B, then it is reasonable to believe B given A.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places because scientific experiments have established this as a fact. However this paradoxical result is not logical. In fact, it arguably contradicts all the rules of logic. — Pantagruel
Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning?Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel
So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation? — Harry Hindu
So, is the "reasonable reconciliation" ...arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning? — Harry Hindu
You don't seem to understand what synonym means. If you look up the synonym of logical then you will get reasonable as an entry.This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel
Which is to say that you didn't have all the relevant reasons to support your conclusion. What seems logical and reasonable actually wasnt - the difference between inductive and deductive logic. One is based on the laws of logic, the other on observation over time.If significant information is missing. — Pantagruel
Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul
Logic. — Harry Hindu
There's always the question of which logic is appropriate for the task — fdrake
I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel
"Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel
Part of being logical is limiting the amount of assumptions to a bare minimum - like things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. There comes a point in where we need to really think about what we say because we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context.The difference between them, ergo, is not logic in the sense one side has used it well and the other side has not; rather the actual source of disputes is the assumptions each side has made in their arguments and assumptions are not a matter of logic. Assumptions are made in the low visibility fog of ignorance and you may just as well flip a coin to decide which ones you want to base your views on for logic is utterly useless in this regard. — TheMadFool
we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context. — Harry Hindu
So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true? — Harry Hindu
What I was referring to was the hermenutic circle, where the meaning of anything (word, concept, idea) is determined by the context in which it occurs, while simultaneously the context is composed of such meanings — Pantagruel
Not involving the concept of thinking, but how to communicate the concept of thinking to others. In asking for definitions we are asking where each of our boundaries for such a thing as thinking are - where we might be overlapping and where we aren't, and why, and we are forced to do so via language - symbolism - because we aren't telepathic.Then the concept of "thinking" is different for us to the extent that we have different contextual-histories involving the concept of thinking. — Pantagruel
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful.Looking.
Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul
So something else other than an exchange of subjective opinions is required for determining if a state of true safety exists.Feeling safe is not being safe, by the way...
One can be told the 'right' sorts of things to believe and feel that they are safe, and yet not be. — creativesoul
Part of being logical is limiting the amount of assumptions to a bare minimum - like things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. There comes a point in where we need to really think about what we say because we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context.
The whole point of condoning the idea that truth can be found in contradictions is to make it easier on the emotional control center of the brain. It is a means of deluding ourselves into thinking that what we believe is true, even when others think the opposite. — Harry Hindu
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu
You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul
You're not being very helpful. Your behavior indicates that you really aren't interested in what you put out in your OP. You seem to be showing that, at least for you, there is no method forI've offered at least three already. Address those. — creativesoul
determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul
For those leaning on logic, please remember this...
The sole aim of logic is to preserve truth. The sole aim of logical notation is to take proper account of pre-existing thought, belief, and/or statements thereof, all of which also presuppose truth somewhere along the line. — creativesoul
So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true?
— Harry Hindu
Looking.
Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful. — Harry Hindu
If you're asking if you can apply logic to ethical questions, then no. There is no such thing as an objective morality. When it is right to open an economy is when individuals feel safe in going out in public, and that can vary from individual to individual. So it seems to me that you are attempting to answer an unanswerable question, or attempting to answer a subjective question as if it had an objective answer. — Harry Hindu
You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul
Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though.
— creativesoul
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu
I've offered at least three already. Address those.
— creativesoul
You're not being very helpful. — Harry Hindu
Perhaps you forgot your OP:The above are explicitly stated reasons that existed in time prior to your statement above. In your defense, I did not let you know about it at the time. Perhaps you missed that? — creativesoul
If you have a problem with logic "presupposing some truth", then why did you presuppose that there are two opposing opinions and that there is a best one to believe?Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul
How did you come to know X, and in knowing X, are you not saying X is a truth, in which case you used logic to know X?One who knows nothing at all about using logic can tell whether or not all sorts of simple statements are true. So, if one such individual already knew 'X', and suddenly found themselves witnessing conflicting opinions in direct conflict to 'X', they could, quite possibly already be, one step forward in determining which of the opinions were reliable and true. — creativesoul
It does it for me... — Harry Hindu
if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Harry Hindu
You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. So, while they disagree with their words, they agree with their actions.But what I was asking, was about the conflict between you and everyone else commenting. — unenlightened
You're confusing logic with delusions.And I can see of course that that conflict has not at all been resolved. So I wonder if it is to some extent an externalisation of that internal conflict that you claim is resolved by logic? — unenlightened
You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. — Harry Hindu
You're mistaken. — Harry Hindu
You're confusing logic with delusions. — Harry Hindu
Yet I made the same statement here and you didn't say anything of the sort.Kindly do not misrepresent my position. I consider that a reportable offence. — Pantagruel
As has been shown by me, you, fdrake and others, there are various forms of logic just as there are various forms of reason. It would be my bet that each form of logic maps onto each form of reasoning that you want to provide as an example.Logic is one constituent of reason. Reason most emphatically does NOT reduce to logic. Reason also functions through analogy, intuition, synthesis, etc. — Pantagruel
Pantagruel has been so inconsistent and intellectually dishonest since their initial interaction with me, I seriously don't know what they think or believe.No Harry. As you see, I am not mistaken. Pantagruel, @creativesoul and myself, (and @fdrake can speak for himself), but three of us are fairly clear in our continued disagreement with you. You cannot "show" that people agree with you and call that a resolution, you have to allow their autonomy and persuade them to agree. — unenlightened
Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul
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.