It's impossible to be vigilant all the time, or even all but a tiny fraction of the time. We're hardwired to take shortcuts. It takes a lot of effort; both cognitive and emotional labour; to actually think in a way that sticks to what can plausibly be inferred from what we know.

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

Translation:
X = Does Harry Hindu think (Y = there is a logic that doesn't suppose T/F)?

Interpretation 1: Harry Hindu believes believes X - truth about Harry Hindu.

Interpretation 2: Multi-valued (dialectical) logic does not fit the simplistic interpretation T/F) - so Y is not true, in the sense at the very least that it is incomplete.

If we are talking about interpretation one, we could basically stick "I think" in front of everything that everybody says, and it will always be true. But why would we ignore the external referents of propositions in this way?

That's right Harry, I forgot, there's no conflict of opinion in politics is there? — unenlightened

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand?

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand? — Harry Hindu

Oh. I'm glad we agree.

LNC doesn't give you a logic by itself. It says very little about valid inferences; or plausibility of claims; or evidentiary status; it just tells you not to believe something and its negation at the same time. This is nowhere near enough. — fdrake

Sure it does. It basically mandates that the opposite of true is false. It is the root of all philosophical conclusions. If you keep asking, "why?", it basically comes down to, "because it is.", and something cannot be something that it isn't.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand? — Harry Hindu

Oh. I'm glad we agree. — unenlightened

Yeah, but not on the topic at hand, because you decided to engage in ad hominem political attacks rather than defend your statements on the topic at hand.

If we are talking about interpretation one, we could basically stick "I think" in front of everything that everybody says, and it will always be true. But why would we ignore the external referents of propositions in this way? — Pantagruel

I find it very strange that you don't see your own presuppositions of truth in every sentence that you make - that every statement you make is about how things are - from what dialectical logic is to what your thoughts are.

Yeah, but not on the topic at hand, because you decided to engage in ad hominem political attacks rather than defend your statements on the topic at hand. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, are you saying we shouldn't be discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion or that we should be? I take the latter view - do you agree?

Note. I am here following my own stricture of trying to establish some common ground.

The rules of correct inference(logic) cannot tell us whether or not some statement or other is true. If the aim is to determine which of two competing statements is true, then logic is of no help here. It can, however, be used to establish whether or not a statement has been arrived at by virtue of following those rules, if we know the particular kind of logic being used. Logic can help us to determine if statements are reasoned.

Typically, logical statements are held to be better(more reliable) than those that are not arrived at via logical means, however, a statement/opinion can be both valid(a logical statement/conclusion that follows the rules of correct inference) and false.

Logic alone is utterly inadequate for the task at hand.

I find it very strange that you don't see your own presuppositions of truth in every sentence that you make - that every statement you make is about how things are - from what dialectical logic is to what your thoughts are. — Harry Hindu

That's because I am capable of dialectical reasoning.

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave.

I guess the whole point is that there are scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. Even in physics, particles can be in more that one state simultaneously, it's what makes quantum computing possible. So it seems that there are empirical conditions in which the true/false dyad breaks down. Nature, it seems, never learned boolean logic.

So in terms of the OP, can we achieve a mutual understanding such that both your notion, that logic is foundational, and my notion that logic transcends the boolean form, co-exist?

Sometimes when there are competing opinions, both sides include some true stuff, but arrive at starkly different opinions regarding say... the way things are and what ought be done next.

When to "reopen the economy" is a fine example of this.

This is a much more difficult situation for a listener to ascertain, and drake is fairly spot on regarding much of what it takes. The shame is that one needs to be able to do that, because that shows us that we cannot trust some of those elected officials.

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave. — Pantagruel

Introduce a timeline. Brave at this time, not at the other. A is not both brave and not-brave at the same time.

Sure. But the essence of the man is the synthesis of all his past moments, so the synchronic condition still exists.

Generally speaking...

In order to choose better, one must perform a comparison/contrast between the opposing views. Not just any comparison will do here though. We need one that increases our chances of successfully navigating the world we all find ourselves deeply embedded within. It ought be fairly uncontentious to exclaim this much, for it is precisely opposing opinions that we are contemplating the worth/value of.

Which, of either, opinions are true and what makes them so?

We must know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, in order to know which of multiple conflicting opinions is best(reliable and true).

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.

I'd like to reprise common sense for a moment, and suggest that it is common, not in the sense of there being no shortage, but in the sense of it being shared. Meaning is shared, senses are shared, and this is the bedrock on which all communication is founded. Our discussion cannot begin without this commonality.

It is hard to communicate with a deaf-blind person, because the senses we have in common are not the ones we usually philosophise with.

Sorry, are you saying we shouldn't be discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion or that we should be? I take the latter view - do you agree?

Note. I am here following my own stricture of trying to establish some common ground. — unenlightened

You SAY that, unenlightened, but then your concept of "discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion" involves bringing politics into a discussion that doesn't involve politics in order to make personal attacks on the person you've disagreed with politically in other discussions.

What you do is different than what you say, so what am I suppose to believe?

The rules of correct inference(logic) cannot tell us whether or not some statement or other is true. If the aim is to determine which of two competing statements is true, then logic is of no help here. It can, however, be used to establish whether or not a statement has been arrived at by virtue of following those rules, if we know the particular kind of logic being used. Logic can help us to determine if statements are reasoned.

Typically, logical statements are held to be better(more reliable) than those that are not arrived at via logical means, however, a statement/opinion can be both valid(a logical statement/conclusion that follows the rules of correct inference) and false.

Logic alone is utterly inadequate for the task at hand. — creativesoul

Well sure, empiricism is just as necessary as rationality, if that is what you mean. If not, then I would encourage you to give examples of where logic/empiricism, alone is inadequate. We can make claims all day, but if you aren't willing to provide examples that can falsify my statements, then it seems that we are at an impasse.

That's because I am capable of dialectical reasoning.

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave. — Pantagruel

Huh? :brow:

No, no, Pantagruel. This just means that bravery comes in degrees, not on or off.

Haven't we already been over this?

To say that one is both brave and not-brave just makes bravery meaningless. Bravery cannot be brave and not-brave (law of non-contradiction). If this were the case, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing when we discuss "bravery"?

I asked that question of you before in the other thread, and your response was another contradiction.

So, it seems to me that you think dialectic logic is the solution to everything. It seems that your use of dialectic logic is a bit religious, as if that is the type of "logic" that is used to escape the truth of solutions that you don't like.

I guess the whole point is that there are scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. Even in physics, particles can be in more that one state simultaneously, it's what makes quantum computing possible. So it seems that there are empirical conditions in which the true/false dyad breaks down. Nature, it seems, never learned boolean logic.

So in terms of the OP, can we achieve a mutual understanding such that both your notion, that logic is foundational, and my notion that logic transcends the boolean form, co-exist? — Pantagruel

There are never scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. To say that there is, is to deny the law of non contradiction, but to deny the law of non contradiction actually makes use of it, so you end up defeating your own argument.

The problem isn't the logic, it is the premise that everything is black and white, like bravery.

What you do is different than what you say, so what am I suppose to believe? — Harry Hindu

I don't want to discuss what I think you ought believe about what I claim to believe, because, apart from being off-topic, I cannot expect you to believe what I might have to say about it, given that you already don't believe what I have just said as clearly as possible more than once, and done my absolute damnedest to elicit your agreement about. But you don't want to agree, even about what we are talking about. So we seem to have a disagreement about what we have a disagreement about, but without actually disagreeing, but merely by not believing what is being said. It's a very neat demonstration of the limitations of logic and common sense. If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed.

So, it seems to me that you think dialectic logic is the solution to everything — Harry Hindu

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that it exists, in contrast with your claim that everything reduces to true and false. Cheers.

Well sure, empiricism is just as necessary as rationality, if that is what you mean. If not, then I would encourage you to give examples of where logic/empiricism, alone is inadequate. — Harry Hindu

The question is whether or not there is some universally applicable reliable method for determining which opinion is true when we find ourselves being presented with conflicting opinions about the same things.

You stated "logic". I answered that logic alone is inadequate for determining which conflicting opinion is true.

Now you're invoking a philosophical position called "empiricism" and adding it to logic alone, as if to say logic and empiricism are enough - when used in conjunction with one another - to tell which conflicting opinion is true. I'm still objecting to that for it's not true. Logic and empiricism are inadequate. They are not capable of being used as a means to discriminate between true and false claims.

So, in effect you're changing your answer, and/or moving the goalposts. I could object on those grounds, but that would look like a hollow victory, and I'm not interested in winning. I am interested in shedding some much needed light upon an everyday problem.

If speaker A says "We should re-open the economy" and speaker B says "We should not re-open the economy" we have ourselves a real life everyday example to discuss.

So...

Tell me how logic alone can discriminate between which of these two statements is true, if either is and exactly how logic determines that much.

I'll tell you how it cannot, even when - especially when - accompanied by empiricism.

I'd like to reprise common sense for a moment, and suggest that it is common, not in the sense of there being no shortage, but in the sense of it being shared. Meaning is shared, senses are shared, and this is the bedrock on which all communication is founded. Our discussion cannot begin without this commonality. — unenlightened

Indeed...

Here's a few common sense lines of thought regarding that...

Names have referents. Naming practices pick individual things out of this world. It is often the case that a disagreement amounts to different people using the same name to talk about very different things.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that it exists, in contrast with your claim that everything reduces to true and false. Cheers. — Pantagruel

But you aren't merely pointing out that it exists. You attempted to show an example of it's use and failed miserably. In pointed out that it exists, you are pointing out a truth, and even provided (what you thought) is the nature of it's existence.

In doing my own research, there is nothing about dialectic logic that implies that it "transcends the true/false dyad of traditional logic". Even your own link seems to imply that there is an underlying truth in our opposing views. This is akin to what I have said before in that we can have different views of the same thing, but we have to be careful that we aren't confusing our views with what our views are of. In discussing opposing views, we are discussing our views, not what our view is of. To get at what our views are of, we have to find similarities between our views, not differences between our views.

The fact that our views may differ says nothing about what our views are about, but more about ourselves - the viewers.

The question is whether or not there is some universally applicable reliable method for determining which opinion is true when we find ourselves being presented with conflicting opinions about the same things. — creativesoul

Like I said to Pantagruel. If our opinions are conflicting, then how do you know that our opinions are of the same thing?

You stated "logic". I answered that logic alone is inadequate for determining which conflicting opinion is true.

Now you're invoking a philosophical position called "empiricism" and adding it to logic alone, as if to say logic and empiricism are enough - when used in conjunction with one another - to tell which conflicting opinion is true. I'm still objecting to that for it's not true. Logic and empiricism are inadequate. They are not capable of being used as a means to discriminate between true and false claims.

So, in effect you're changing your answer, and/or moving the goalposts. I could object on those grounds, but that would look like a hollow victory, and I'm not interested in winning. I am interested in shedding some much needed light upon an everyday problem.

If speaker A says "We should re-open the economy" and speaker B says "We should not re-open the economy" we have ourselves a real life everyday example to discuss.

So...

Tell me how logic alone can discriminate between which of these two statements is true, if either is and exactly how logic determines that much.

I'll tell you how it cannot, even when - especially when - accompanied by empiricism. — creativesoul

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.

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true? It seems to me that you used logic in your post to attempt to show how logic is inadequate. In showing that something is inadequate, does it make sense to use the very thing that you claim is inadequate to show how it is inadequate? :roll:

You attempted to show an example of it's use and failed miserably — Harry Hindu

Or else you simply failed to grasp it because it doesn't fit in your procrustean perspective..

Or else you simply failed to grasp it because it doesn't fit in your procrustean perspective.. — Pantagruel

No, that isnt the case. What is the case is that you see the world in black and white and you often confuse your black for white and vice versa.

"Many-valued logics are non-classical logics. They are similar to classical logic because they accept the principle of truth-functionality, namely, that the truth of a compound sentence is determined by the truth values of its component sentences (and so remains unaffected when one of its component sentences is replaced by another sentence with the same truth value). But they differ from classical logic by the fundamental fact that they do not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees."

Many Valued Logic

This is all I proposed. Dialectical logic is just a different style of many valued logic one which is not limited to a dyadic truth relationship. I only ever suggested it as an example, and never proposed it as authoritative. In fact, I specifically stipulated that. I have nothing beyond that to contribute to this particular conversation.

they do not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees. — Pantagruel

Seems to support what I said, not what you said. Bravery comes in degrees, not on or off / true or false. Some are braver than others. Tell me, Pantagruel, what room does the word "braver" have in your example? You seem to say that the word would be meaningless if you were to apply dialectic logic to bravery. So it seems that either you have the wrong idea about dialectic logic or the wrong idea about bravery, and how and when to apply dialectic logic (it doesn't seem to work for bravery), and it is reflected by your example

What I find interesting is that there can only be truth degrees, but no degrees of falsity? So dialectic logic is a way for everyone to be right? How convenient. How religious.

Seems to support what I said, not what you said. Bravery comes in degrees, not on or off / true or false. Some are braver than others. Tell me, Pantagruel, what room does the word "braver" have in your example? You seem to say that the word would be meaningless if you were to apply dialectic logic to bravery. So it seems that either you have the wrong idea about dialectic logic, and how and when to use it, and it reflects in your example. — Harry Hindu

Au contraire. It was a perfectly valid choice of a dialectical problem. It was never intended to be conclusive, only illustrative (as I have repeatedly pointed out, yet you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge).

"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"

Dialectical Thinking

Certainly your counter-argument was applicable, and amplified the issue. In doing so, you thereby participated in the process of dialectical reasoning, and gave a strong argument yourself for the use of many-valued (versus dyadic) logic.

Having read the Critique of Dialectical Reason a couple of months ago. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of the basics.

Au contraire. It was a perfectly valid choice of a dialectical problem. Itwas never intended to be conclusive, only illustrative (as I have repeatedly pointed out, yet you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge). — Pantagruel

:lol: What did you attempt to illustrate if not the conclusive nature of dialectic logic? Or are you saying that your illustration is just scribbles and isn't about anything?

"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

Which supports what I said here:

This is akin to what I have said before in that we can have different views of the same thing, but we have to be careful that we aren't confusing our views with what our views are of. In discussing opposing views, we are discussing our views, not what our view is of. To get at what our views are of, we have to find similarities between our views, not differences between our views.

The fact that our views may differ says nothing about what our views are about, but more about ourselves - the viewers. — Harry Hindu

See how it says "reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information".

What does it mean by "reasonable" if not "logical" in the classical sense?

What does "seemingly contradictory" mean if not that it appears contradictory but actually isn't once you reconcile the differences using reason (classical logic)? So it seems to me that classical logic is necessary for dialectic logic to work.

Certainly your counter-argument was applicable, and amplified the issue. In doing so, you thereby participated in the process of dialectical reasoning, and gave a strong argument yourself for the use of many-valued (versus dyadic) logic. — Pantagruel

This doesn't fit with what you just quoted. You and I have opposing views, that have yet to be reasonably reconciled. So we haven't yet engaged in any dialectic logic because you don't want to reasonably reconcile our opposing views. You just want to go off-topic and say that I don't understand, or that I'm not grasping it, as if dialectic logic has this nature that I'm not grasping and that my view of it is false, not some degree of truth of it. You keep contradicting yourself with every post.

Again, you fundamentally misconstrue.

Dialectic presupposes disagreement.