That is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. — Bartricks

Right now assuming you get into a conversation with someone to whom non-contradiction (or anything that seems the case to you) doesn’t appear to be the case. Is the burden of proof on them or on you?

They would say it’s on you (since you are contradicting their appearances) and you would say it’s on them (since they are contradicting your appearances)

Now what?

The law of non-contradiction appears to be true. That is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. That's an appearance: a rational appearance. — Bartricks

That is not my understanding of the law of non-contradiction. As I understand it, the law would merely state that a red hat cannot be a blue hat. The law of identity is that a red hat is a red hat and a blue hat is a blue hat. It matters naught what the definition of red is, or how red appears. All that matters is that whatever red is, it is red. It is not blue. X = X and X does not = -X.

I do not find what you are saying to be coherent.

You are asking, I think, for a justification for the laws of logic. Well, I have provided one: they appear to be true and it is a basic principle of intellectual inquiry that if something appears to be the case we are justified in believing it to be. And if you want a justification for that principle, you are asking to be shown reason to believe it, yes? Well, does it not appear to you that you have reason to believe it?
Perhaps you want to be shown that you have reason to believe what you have apparent reason to believe. But now your desire is confused or at least has no bearing on anything's being justified. For if you recognize that you have apparent reason to believe it, then you are already aware of a reason to believe it and you are simply wanting to be shown more of the same.

No, you don't know what you're talking about or what I'm talking about. But thanks for your input. — Bartricks

No. — Bartricks

Whoa! What perspicacity of thought and knowledge! What powers of demonstration! What sharpness of wit! I am crushed in the grip of your irresistible reason and arguments. No. No! And again NO! Had only this gift of persuasion been realized by Socrates himself western civilization had then carved for itself whole other and different channels of understanding.

Or not. Bar trick is well-named, because behind the noise you got nothing, and wrong to boot! Yours implicitly a might-makes-right argument. But the might in an argument is its various kinds of force, logical, moral, ethical. And of these you have nothing.

Since you are all about appearances, when QM appears to show a single thing to be in two different places at the same time, then it must be logical that it is so? What if that defies logic? What then? You have a fundamental principle of logic saying "X" and QM saying "Y", and yet "X" has never offered up a proof, other than appearances (and appearances are not proof), so why is the burden on "Y" and not "X"?

I think I'll go back to beating my head on Hegel. At least for a while.

You are not understanding the principle.
First, a proof will consist of appearances. It was a point Descartes made. I can prove I exist. How? I appear to exist. And that appearance is so strong there is nothing I can think of that will raise a doubt about its accuracy.
Second, when appearances appear to conflict - that is, when their representative contents appear contradictory - we are default justified in believing that one or other or both are inaccurate. Why? Because the law of non-contradiction says so and it appears to be true to virtually everyone (and we cannot notice conflicts between appearances until we notice that the law of non-contradiction appears to be true).

Still no.

Still no. — Bartricks

Indirect proof that no embroidery will make a silk purse out of....

I wouldn't get into a conversation with such a person.

The principle of phenomenal conservatism marks the beginning of intellectual inquiry. That the law of non contradiction appears to be true followed by the subsequent appearance of conflicting appearances is what generates questions about what is really the case. And that's the beginning of philosophy.

Appearances can be defeated or undercut and it is the on-going business of philosophical inquiry to defeat and undercut conflicting appearances in the most appearance respecting manner.

I'm going to cede the floor. I'll check back in once in a while to see if there is anything besides "appearances" or "because I said so" or "a gentlemen's agreement" or "self-evident" or "can't prove a negative" or anecdote as proof in support of the the fundamental principles of logic.

hmmm....No.

Some people prefer questions to answers. You are one of those, I think.

In dismissing appearances you do not just dismiss me, but Aristotle. Do you think that's wise?

I wouldn't get into a conversation with such a person. — Bartricks

You wouldn’t get into a conversation with someone to whom something appears differently from you? You read the parenthesis right? No you do that all the time.

So, who is the burden of proof on? Whose appearances (does it appear to you!) are the “standard” appearances that don’t need proving?

I wouldn't get into a conversation with someone to whom the law of non contradiction did not appear to be true. Read your original post and then read my reply.

If it appears to me that x is true, but it appears to you that x is false, then both my view and yours conflicts with some appearances, yes?

So we now both have the burden of proof if we want to insist our view is the true one.

If, however, I form the view that as there is an appearance that x is true, and an equally strong appearance that x is false, therefore x is as likely true as false given this evidence, then I do not have the burden of proof, for now my view is in line with the appearances.

I'm not sure I understand this. — James Riley

Are you saying logic is not a representation of reality? If it is, isn't failure to recognize the difference between reality and logic a logical failure?

We're probably digging to deep into this particular hole. It doesn't seem very productive to me.

makes sense. Weird to me that you give any and all different appearances the same weight. Is the earth round? Well to a flat earther you have the burden of proof. Not that I know of a good way to separate these appearances out as worthy or unworthy of requiring a proof.

I wouldn't give them the same weight - some appearances appear stronger than others, and other things being equal that translates into them giving us greater reason to believe in the accuracy of their representative contents.

Are you saying logic is not a representation of reality? If it is, isn't failure to recognize the difference between reality and logic a logical failure? — T Clark

I'm not saying that, but I will. Logic is not a representation of reality. It's a tool used to understand reality, no matter how reality might be represented. But even if it were a representation of reality, a failure to recognize that is not necessarily a logical failure. If a painting is a representation of reality, a failure to recognize the difference between reality and the painting is not the painting's failure.

We're probably digging to deep into this particular hole. It doesn't seem very productive to me. — T Clark

Agreed. I thank you for your time.

After thinking about it for a while, I figure I should have responded to your thoughts here. I did not, because I found them to be a circular tautology. "The rules is the rules because the rules work. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?" Let me try to address your post on the merits.

In my opinion, philosophy (and logic as a part thereof) is not reality but is, rather, a tool we use to help us understand and explain reality. Rules exist for that reason. I get that.

So you and I, both knowing the rules of chess, sit down to play a game. The pieces are all in place for the beginning of the game. As we stare at the board, settling our minds, and preparing to make the first move, one of my rooks, sua sponte, steps off the board one space.

You say "Hey! You can't do that!" to which I respond "Hey, I didn't do that!" To which you respond "Well, that's a violation of the rules! Put it back!" And I say "No, I'm going to stay here and try to figure out why that rook seems to have moved on it's own, apparently thinking the rules suck; I'm going see why the rules apparently don't apply to it. You go play chess with someone who wants to play be the rules."

This is not unlike the QM scientist staring at a red hat "here" that also appears to be over "there"; or a red hat that appears to have appeared simply because it was observed; or a red hat "here" that simultaneously influences a blue hat over "there" or because he otherwise observes something that appears to violate the fundamental rules of logic.

Now, he can try to bend reality to comply with the rules, or he can continue to recite a circular tautology to the effect "that can't be." Or, he could revisit the rules and see if they don't need to be tweaked to better help him understand reality.

But alas, when he revisits the rules and sees that the rules themselves don't stand up to a scrutiny using the rules own rules, then those rules should at least raise an eyebrow.

I perceived that T Clark and others at least understood the rules of logic were under attack. You, however, are off playing chess with those who play by the rules. I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with that. If a tool works for the project you are working on, you'd be a fool to not use it. But when you run into a wall (that which science currently and publicly struggles with) at least a few scientists should go back to the beginning and check out the foundation upon which they stand. If you chase the premises of logical argument far enough back to the very beginning, you find the fundamental laws, rules, principles or whatever you want to call them. Maybe they need a stress test. There are some wayward rooks in QM that apparently think the rules suck, or at least they don't apply to them.

I don't disagree too much with the substance of this. If the rook moves by itself, it's not playing chess.

This is not too far form the topic of An analysis of 'On Certainty' elsewhere in the fora.

And it is also a long way form the decidedly irrational anti-logic of your OP.

And it is also a long way form the decidedly irrational anti-logic of your OP. — Banno

I stipulate to the anti-logic of my patent attack on logic, and it's failure to abide it's own logical principles, one of which I use to attack it. However, if it were "decidedly irrational", I'd like to see those who made the decision answer the attack. So far, crickets.

The rook is indeed not playing chess. And some of what we see in QM is apparently not playing by the rules of logic. That's the point.

I will take a look at "An analysis of 'On Certainty."

If you are arguing against argument, then there is really no point in anyone responding to you with another argument is there?

That's the upshot of the level of scepticism in the OP. It is self-denying.

If you are arguing against argument, then there is really no point in anyone responding to you with another argument is there? — Banno

I'm not arguing against argument. In fact, I'm using argument's own rules to ask argument to abide it's own rules.

Sometime ago I binged-watched a show call “The Queen’s Gambit.” In the show, this chess-playing phenom said something to the effect that her love of the game was based upon this confined little board with little pieces and rules and where she had control. It was like a little word. Now chess, like logic, has been seen as a tool one might use in the navigation of our messy reality. And, to a certain extent, I think that is correct. This phenom had an upbringing that was shy on social skills, yet she seemed to do alright navigating the mess. Maybe chess had something to do with that.

But whereas the board and the pieces are real, the rules are a construct we agree upon. So long as we abide those rules, the game works. If one party violates the rules, it all falls apart. There is a gentlemen’s agreement t abide.

I can’t imagine, however, how she would have dealt with a piece that stepped off the board, of its own accord, in violation of the rules. How would she, or even a QM phenom, deal with the reality (not the rule construct, but the messy reality) of a piece of reality apparently not abiding the rules? You can scream, or walk away, or deny the game, or make demands, etc. But your complaining means is all for naught. You can even point back at the rules, hands on hips, and huff. But that's just tautological.

I'm not arguing against argument. In fact, I'm using argument's own rules to ask argument to abide it's own rules. — James Riley

That's not how it looks; but it must be what you take yourself to be doing, in order to be consistent.

In order to engage in an argument, there must be some shared background. Your OP seeks to deny this.

Beth learns rules from outside chess as the series progresses and she becomes comfortable with who she is and her story. There's not just one logic.

That's not how it looks; but it must be what you take yourself to be doing, in order to be consistent. — Banno

As stated, I understand that it is a principle of logical argument that the burden of proof is upon the proponent. Logic (or it's champions) set forth laws, rules or principles, the support for which seems to be "self-evident" or "a negative can't be proven" (in which case logic is based upon that which cannot be proven), or "we need to agree or we can't argue" (a tautology, like we can't play chess if we don't abide the rules of chess). The most persuasive of those is the "self-evident" claim. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that that which is "self-evident" would be capable of lesser proofs (and I don't mean anecdote, which logic itself finds to be in the nature of a fallacy). In short, I have not left off logic when I simply ask logic to provide a proof of it's submission.

Everything I've said to you, I have said before in this thread, to you or others. I have learned there comes a point in argument where the opposition must be called upon to properly articulate your point (even if they zealously disagree with it) in order for future argument to be constructive. In other words, I'm not even asking to agree with me, but if you can't even understand what I'm saying, then like a violation of the rules of chess, there is no sense playing. Now, that might be laid at my feat, as a poor teacher, unable to convey his thoughts. But I think not. At a certain point, it is incumbent upon the student to prove he understands what it being said, even if he disagrees. So, if you can come back and satisfactorily articulate my position, then we can proceed. If not, then we are wasting our time.

"Wittgenstein's own view of scepticism remained that succinctly expressed in the Tractatus: 'Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked.' And it is in connection with this view of scepticism that he found something philosophically interesting about Moore's 'common sense propositions'. They do not give examples of 'certain knowledge', but, rather, examples of cases in which doubt is nonsensical. [This is the hallmark of a hinge-proposition.] If we could seriously doubt that Moore was holding up two hands, there would be no reason no to doubt anything else, including the trustworthiness of our senses. And in that case the whole framework in which we raise doubts and answer them would collapse: 'Certain propositions belong to my "frame of reference". If I had to give them up, I shouldn't be able to judge anything.' One such proposition might be the statement: 'That's a tree', said while standing in front of a tree:... — Sam26

...Sam, quoting Monk.

The basic reply to your OP, by me and others, is that failure to accept non-contradiction undermines any further discussion.

Go there, if you like. I'll not be joining you. Obviously.

The basic reply to your OP, by me and others, is that failure to accept non-contradiction undermines any further discussion. — Banno

So what is the QM scientist to do when non-contradiction is contradicted? I guess he's left to reality while others play by artificial constructs.

QM does not contradict itself. If it appears to contradict your Aristotelian logic, then so much the worse for Aristotle. Any contradiction you think you have spotted comes from mixing distinct systems - as you did when you proposed using the rules of chess to explain a movement that occurred outside of the game...

I don't think I can help you any further. Have a think about what has been said.

QM does not contradict itself. — Banno

Right. QM does not contradict itself. QM is reality. Rather, QM contradicts your law of non-contradiction.

Maybe you are too consumed by me, and your inability to grasp thoughts that are outside of your artificial rule metric.

So forget me. Here is something you should go think about: What is a QM scientist to do when reality shows him "X" here and "X' there at the same time? Or "X" only appearing here because the QM scientist saw it here? And if he had looked there, it would have been there? Or the QM scientist finding "X" here simultaneously, and without connection, affecting "Y" there? Each of these violate your fundamental principles of logic. He obviously can't look to you for "why this cannot be." For you will simply tell him he's not seeing reality. Poor guy. Hopefully he's smarter than me and will engage you and logic with reality, forcing you and logic to defend yourselves. I suspect you'll just tell him he's not seeing what he's seeing and to go back and put the rook back on the board. Yokie Dokey. He'll just have to keep watching it jump off the board, laughing in logic's face.

Sure. Keep thinking.