So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. — TheMadFool
Of course [one] is correct. Logic has to rest on something. It’s not controversial, although it never ceases to surprise how many people seem to think it’s fishy or suspect.
That said, logic is not a form of omniscience. There may indeed be many things beyond logic, or for which logical analysis is unsuitable. But insofar as it is real, then the law of the excluded middle, or the law of identity, don’t need further justification - they simply are, they’re what Frege would regard as ‘primitive elements’, like natural numbers. If you ask why one and one equals two, the response can only be: just is so. — Wayfarer
You may consider it a working presumption, if you like, which enables all kinds of things, including our talk.
Frege also thought the Comprehension Schema was "self -evident", but Russell proved it led to Russell's Paradox. — MindForged
It’s just that I’ve broached this topic many times (some others too) and no one has given me an answer that would give me closure. — TheMadFool
You may consider it a working presumption, if you like, which enables all kinds of things, including our talk. — jorndoe
How so? That some objects may not be self-identical doesn't seem to have anything to do with me talking. — MindForged
"When you observe a particle of a certain type, say an electron, now and here, this is to be regarded in principle as an isolated event. Even if you observe a similar particle a very short time at a spot very near to the first, and even if you have every reason to assume a causal connection between the first and the second ob servation, there is no true, unambiguous meaning in the assertion that it is the same particle you have observed in the two cases. The circumstances may be such that they render it highly conve nient and desirable to express oneself so, but it is only an abbre viation of speech; for there are other cases where the 'sameness' becomes entirely meaningless; and there is no sharp boundary, no clear-cut distinction between them, there is a gradual transi tion over intermediate cases. And I beg to emphasize this and I beg you to believe it: It is not a question of being able to ascer tain the identity in some instances and not being able to do so in others. It is beyond doubt that the question of 'sameness', of identity, really and truly has no meaning."
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE NULL=NULL
I just saw a video on youtube on the why of logic as in how one justifies one's belief in the system of logic as the correct method of thinking.
1. It claims that to question logic is, itself, to be logical and therefore all criticisms of logic already subsume the principles of logic - we are looking for reasons to justify our doubts about logical authority.
2. Others claim that to justify logic is to, again, assume logic's authority. This, they allege, is a circularity and therefore logic has no justification.
So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. Both are circular.
I feel like Buridan's ass right now.
Please help...Thank you — TheMadFool
I presume that you're asking what justifies the rules, and the answer is that the rules don't need to be justified, no more than the rules of chess need to be justified. The question is mostly senseless — Sam26
nothing supports bedrock, it's foundational to all that rests on it. You can think of the rules of logic in the same way you think of resting a building on bedrock. It holds up all that follows, it doesn't need a justification. — Sam26
I was reading a text book on Buddhist logic the other day, which pointed out that while Buddhism is explicit about the fact that Nirvāṇa is beyond ‘mere logic’, Buddhist logicians are nevertheless quite scrupulous in their use of logic [as indeed was the Buddha]. Indeed Nāgārjuna’s technique was to use logic to show the limits of logic [via a technique called the ‘tetralemma’.] So they don’t hold that logic is all-knowing, but at the same time, they use logical argument.
Do the Buddhists explain why to show the limits of logic, one needs to use logic? — Shmuel
What would be the fault of trying to show the limits of logic without using logic? — Shmuel
What would be the fault of trying to show the limits of logic without using logic?
— Shmuel
How would you go about that? — Wayfarer
Do the Buddhists explain why to show the limits of logic, one needs to use logic?
What would be the fault of trying to show the limits of logic without using logic?
1. If ALL the predictions of logic are true then logic is justified
2. ALL the predictions of logic are true
So,
3. Logic is justified — TheMadFool
The mind can be used to study the mind just like a logical argument can be used to justify logic. This circularity is benign. — TheMadFool
So, there's nothing wrong with using a sound argument to justify logic. This isn't a vicious circularity as long as we come up with a sound argument free of fallacies. — TheMadFool
So, my final argument looks like this:
Argument A:
1. If ALL the predictions of logic are true then logic is justified
2. ALL the predictions of logic are true
So,
3. Logic is justified
Argument A is NOT circular and is a valid application of modus ponens. — TheMadFool
That's tricky though, right? Because the sort of abstraction and structure building we associate with mathematics seems to be what we use to formalize existing informal practices. There's some chicken and egg trouble here.
But there are further puzzles. It's also quite natural to think that formalization is possible in the first place because the underlying structure was there and operative all along. Formalization would then be not an invention we superimpose on a practice but the discovery of the true structure, the essence of what we were doing, in our imperfect way, the whole time. That puzzle becomes particularly acute in the cases of mathematics and logic.
So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. Both are circular. — TheMadFool
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.