That's why I construct them, and I suspect it's the reason for most other people as well. In the end though, I can only speak for myself.are you saying that the main reason we construct logical theories is because they are useful and relevant to our lives? — khaled
I don't know what role the word 'arbitrary' is playing here. It doesn't seem to fit. I either take premises that are observations or beliefs that are relevant to an actual situation I care about, or that are hypotheses and beliefs about a hypothetical situation I am interested in. I don't see how arbitrariness has anything to do with this, unless one were to say that what I care about, am interested in, observe or believe is arbitrary, in which case I'd say 'I don't see that as arbitrary but I don't mind if somebody else wants to say it is'.Arbitrary premise -> arbitrary logic
No it's
Arbitrary "life impact" -> arbitrary premise -> arbitrary logic
P1: arithmetic is correct
P2: 2+2=7
3+3 = (2+1) + (2+1) = 2+2+2= 7+2=9
Therefore the premise: 3+3=6 is false — khaled
then by modus ponens you have both 3+3=6 and 3+3 does not equal 6 — tim wood
Actually, there are many premises that cannot be "validated" by any premise. And it's time for you to define "validate." — tim wood
The entire point of this post is that there are multiple possible apriori premises to pick from and to use in validation of other premises and that there is nothing to distinguish these without relying on other apriori premises but then THOSE have no validation. The point is that human belief must start from an arbitrary pivot — khaled
The solution is to give up trying to render ultimate validation via apriori premises or fundamental axioms, and to instead rely on the empirically accessible — VagabondSpectre
Show me a premise that can be known to be true without referring to any other premises — khaled
Does understanding how to use the English language count as referring to another premiss? — creativesoul
Does understanding how to use the English language count as referring to another premiss?
— creativesoul
Yes. You'd have to accept premises such as "Humans are capable of storing memories", "Auditory input is reliable", etc. If Auditory input is not reliable you can't learn English — khaled
I don't think what an eighteen-month old knows is anything like as philosophical as that. My guess is that what they know is that you make the 'cup' noise when you want to draw attention to a thing that looks like what's over there. It's a game, a language game. — andrewk
Try reading the post again.How? By modus ponens if 2+2=7 and you replace the premises as I did accordingly in my last comment then it can be inferred that 3+3 does not equal 6 — khaled
Logically follows?Validate: for premise A to validate premise B means that premise B logically follows from premise A — khaled
I think so tooOne can know that a statement is true long before ever knowing why and/or how they've come to believe it. — creativesoul
One can know that the statement "there is a cup on the table" is true by virtue of looking. There is no need for one to refer to another premiss — creativesoul
Incorrect. One would have to accept the premise "Visual input is reliable" — khaled
As if knowing that that statement is true requires knowing how to do logic? — 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.