Which metaphysical and epistemological problems need to be solved prior to understanding, or being able to use, logic? Tell me how you answer that question without using logic. — Harry Hindu

Which logical axioms should we accept? — 83nt0n

All of them or any of them, when applicable. To my knowledge, none of them contradict any other one, except maybe dialetheism, but I am beginning to think that that is just psuedo-logic (see my other thread).

I think that depends on what you mean by some element of truth. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but useful. — 83nt0n

How so?

An element of truth would be an axiom that some other statement depends on. If some system is helpful in making predictions in the future after being used hundreds or thousands of times, then there is something there. That doesn't always mean that the next time is going to work out just as you planned it, especially if there are other elements or variables that could work their way into the process you are trying to predict at any given time.

We are ignorant. We only have experience to go by. Logic tells us that experience isn't all you should go by, but here we are. We can become as objective as possible by exposing our hypotheses and theories to constant criticism and apply them to mass-produced technologies so every layman can test it as well. When a species can mold it's environment to the degree that humans have done, then there is something to be said about how accurate our understanding of the world is.

So while we only have our experience to go by, the experience of billions using the same theories and getting the same results is something to be said about the method by which we've been able to achieve this - science and logic.

With that said, we still have a long way to go, and that is what makes life, and science, interesting.

Picturing an entire galaxy in your mind is impossible. — 83nt0n

I think that you are confusing a galaxy with a picture of a galaxy.

Does a tree have a 'most important' branch? — A SeagullIt's trunk. — 180 Proof

Why?

The trunk cannot exist without the roots and leaves
The roots cannot exist without the trunk and leaves
The leaves cannot exist without the roots and trunk.

Philosophy has to be holistic or it is nothing.

"Most important" does not in any way ever entail ontologically independent or separate. Besides, when the trunk dies the whole tree dies. That not true of any particular leaf branch or root.

To my knowledge, none of them contradict any other one, — Harry Hindu

Well there is the family of liar paradoxes, which some would say shows a "contradiction" in the classical laws of logic.

So while we only have our experience to go by, the experience of billions using the same theories and getting the same results is something to be said about the method by which we've been able to achieve this - science and logic. — Harry Hindu

I tend to agree with this. I just didn't know what you meant by element of truth.

I think that you are confusing a galaxy with a picture of a galaxy. — Harry Hindu

Let me rephase: As far as I am aware, the human mind is not currently capable of conceiving of an entire galaxy; it's too big for us to be able to picture the scale of it in our heads. Just because we can't conceive of something doesn't seem to imply it is impossible to actually exist.

It seems to me that you are engaging in epistemology/metaphysics in order to justify logic. To me it seems that in order to select the axioms of logic, we have to use epistemology/metaphysics to avoid being arbitrary. But it also seems that in order to make distinctions in epistemology/metaphysics we need a system of logic. Like I said before, this appears similar to the problem of the criterion.

Why?

The trunk cannot exist without the roots and leaves
The roots cannot exist without the trunk and leaves
The leaves cannot exist without the roots and trunk.

Philosophy has to be holistic or it is nothing. — A Seagull

Why do we keep coming back to the tree analogy?
If philosophy has to be holistic, then shouldn't it include a metaphilosophical theory that shows us where to start?

Why do we keep coming back to the tree analogy? — 83nt0n

Because it is appropriate.

If philosophy has to be holistic, then shouldn't it include a metaphilosophical theory that shows us where to start? — 83nt0n

What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions.

Besides, when the trunk dies the whole tree dies. That not true of any particular leaf branch or root. — 180 Proof

But if all the leaves die or all the roots die....

What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions. — A Seagull

The original question was which comes first, meaning where to start. I don't recall asking which branch is the most important.

What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions. — A Seagull
The original question was which comes first, meaning where to start. I don't recall asking which branch is the most important. — 83nt0n

It is in the heading : Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy

It is in the heading : Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy — A Seagull

By most fundamental I mean which comes first; which one is the bedrock.

Science has gone on since the first hominid began using tools. Looking under a rock is just as scientific as looking through a telescope. — Harry Hindu

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.

Philosophy has been going on ever since humans created art and buried their dead. And logical and illogical thinking have occured since thinking began, just as tyrannosaurus rexes and triceratops existed before they were identified and given names as such. I never said logic equates to all thinking - just a certain type of thinking.

Ever since we started thinking we've known that there are errors in our thinking. Aristotle simply laid out the various ways we can avoid those errors. — Harry Hindu

No, this is completely wrong.

Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.

To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.

:up:

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.

Looking under a rock CAN be science. It isn't always science and it isn't always not science. The scientific method wasn't codified until recently, but I don't think you can invent something without doing science. It might be really primitive science, but the essence will still be there: hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion. How would one develop, say a canoe, without doing all that?

No, this is completely wrong.

Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.

To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.

I don't see any reason to assume the homo sapiens of any given time period were any less intelligent than we are. I'm sure, at the very least, they had metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, religious discussions, and ethical dilemmas to sort out.

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.

Looking under a rock CAN be science. It isn't always science and it isn't always not science. The scientific method wasn't codified until recently, but I don't think you can invent something without doing science. It might be really primitive science, but the essence will still be there: hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion. How would one develop, say a canoe, without doing all that? — RogueAI

With trial and error, intuition, know-how, etc. We can call that "primitive science" if we want to, but that's so far from what is meant by "science" these days that it's very misleading. It makes nearly everything humans do "primitive science."

To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.

I don't see any reason to assume the homo sapiens of any given time period were any less intelligent than we are. I'm sure, at the very least, they had metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, religious discussions, and ethical dilemmas to sort out. — RogueAI

I never said they were "less intelligent." But they were not doing philosophy, science, or logic any more than they were doing civil engineering or computer science. Sure, one way to look at it is that all of this comes out of the human mind and human creativity, it involves thought and language, etc. In that respect, we've been essentially the same species for 200,000 or so years. But again, to retroactively call tool-making and cave art "science" or animistic beliefs "religious discussion" is a just confusion. Let's not do that, for clarity's sake.

But again, to retroactively call tool-making and cave art "science" or animistic beliefs "religious discussion" is a just confusion.

Discussions of animistic beliefs aren't religious discussions? What an odd thing to claim.

But again, to retroactively call tool-making and cave art "science" or animistic beliefs "religious discussion" is a just confusion.

Discussions of animistic beliefs aren't religious discussions? What an odd thing to claim. — RogueAI

That's hardly "religion." Again, maybe a kind of "primitive" religion, meaning a system of beliefs, but that's not at all the same as later, codified systems that appeared.

To claim people were sitting around having "religious discussions" is kind of ridiculous. It's simply what everyone believed.

I think we're headed for a no true scotsman, where every example I give of religion and philosophy is going to elicit the same response from you: nope, not philosophy, not religion, not science. Until we get to whatever arbitrary definition you've come up with for these things. So, no thanks.

Not arbitrary at all -- ordinary usage.

"There is ongoing disagreement (and no general consensus) as to whether animism is merely a singular, broadly encompassing religious belief[49] or a worldview in and of itself, comprising many diverse mythologies found worldwide in many diverse cultures."

I think the latter is clearly the case.

There's a simple distinction between science and religion. Religion is where you believe stuff without evidence

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition. — Xtrix

Then apes do science. What's so absurd about that? Humans are apes. :nerd: Integrating observation and logic is what science is. Asserting something beyond what observation shows is religion. Hypothesizing and theorizing something beyond what observation shows is only the first step in science. You have to then perform experiments and have others perform the same experiments and get the same results. This is how apes gradually learned how to put sticks in termite holes to procure lunch.

No, this is completely wrong.

Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.

To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion. — Xtrix

The art depicted humans and their relationship with the world and that is the essence of philosophy.

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.
— Xtrix
Then apes do science. — Harry Hindu

OK! Would you excuse me for a minute...

I suppose the same way one can make Logic or Aesthetics "first philosophy"? Or the same way one can start a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with this piece or that one. Any map of the same terrritory will suffice for relating, or framing, other subsequent maps palimpsest-like to one another. One starts from one's own 'ultimate concern' as a thinker (not as a "believer" (pace Tillich)).[/quote]

But this seems to fail to distinguish between ontological or epistemic dependency with a form of psychological dependence for a starting point. The latter might be interesting in some psychological sense, but doesn't seem like the inquiry at stake.

I don't recognize any grounds for assuming the ethics needs "epistemological justification" because I approach philosophy as a noncognitive performative exercise for proposing rigorously coherent criteria for conjecturing and methods for conjecture-testing, and not a cognitive theoretical practice for explaining (with 'testable conjectures') how nature (or even culture) works.

It always seem very strange to me to start with a non-cognitive position. It'll provide a psychological/biological account of why we started somewhere but it doesn't provide any answers to the ordinary questions of how inquiry is possible, what it depends on epistemically, what could have created the propositional (cognitive) abilities in the first place that seem to have a disjunction from the noncognitive.

But this seems to fail to distinguish between ontological or epistemic dependency with a form of psychological dependence for a starting point. — Marty

I don't follow. What "psychological dependence"? You're seeing one where there isn't any.

It always seem very strange to me to start with a non-cognitive position. 

Well I don't (if "position" = presupposed commitment), so I agree. I "start" with human facticity (i.e. embodiment (vide Arendt re: natality ... vide Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Zapffe, Nietzsche, Spinoza & Epicurus)). Philosophy, as I've pointed out previously, is

a noncognitive performative exercise for proposing rigorously coherent criteria for conjecturing and methods for conjecture-testing, and NOT a cognitive theoretical practice for explaining (with 'testable conjectures') how nature (or even culture) works. — 180 Proof

Any philosophical topic taken as a starting point, therefore, will be, in my understanding, noncognitive (i.e. consists in proposals (or meta-statements), not propositions (or object-statements)).