Reason and Observation

[kuroyume0161]

For those who don't understand:

Axiom:

1 a : a proposition, principle, rule, or maxim that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy thereof whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit *the axioms of wisdom* or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence *the axioms of euclidean geometry* b (1) Baconianism : an empirical rule or generalization based on experience (2) Kantianism : an immediately certain synthetic a priori proposition
2 : a selfconsistent statement about the primitive terms or undefinable objects that form the basis for discourse : POSTULATE *the statement that there is one and only one straight line passing through two given points is an axiom*

YES! Axioms are assumptions. But they are not unfounded assumptions. They are fundamental assumptions (Postulates) taken as accepted or evidenced. In Logic, they are well-formed formulas.

Did you, LG, even have basic maths in school?

Kuroyume

 

[lifegazer]

Lifesapper, you really need to read at least ONE book on logic before stepping in it this deeply. This ain't Spock's logic on Star Trek, this is the real formal system which has been in use for thousands of years (since the Greeks developed it).

Tom does not deviate from proper usage or definitions in his posts here. So, all of those deluded mathematicians, logicians, scientists, and anyone else that has used THIS logic in all of this time is incorrect by you, huh?

How do you fit into your house?

Kuroyume

Dude, my response to Tom was spot-on. If he was citing an ancient axiom, then that axiom is in dire need of reform.

If you think my response to Tom was wrong, then show how.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Let's make it absolutely clear that this type of formal logic is what is used by philosophers. You know, those same people who lifegazer claims are the only ones capable of exploring the nature of reality.

Whoops, forgot to add philosophers.

Of course, I'm going from basic principles (truth tables, axioms, statements, proofs, calculus, and so on) to this logic as a progression since that is how I learned it for computer programming. So my take on logic may be skewed.

Apologies for any mix ups there: again, I am not and have not been a student of philosophy, only science and mathematics.

Kuroyume

 

[BoulderHead`]

If the beginning is incorrect, what hope is there for the end?

There, just what I was looking for, preserved for special occations. Thanks !

 

[lifegazer]

There, just what I was looking for, preserved for special occations. Thanks !

Boulder, I need someone to back me up here. Are you backing me up?

 

[Upchurch]

If you think my response to Tom was wrong, then show how.

Tom already has in his second post. He anticipated your argument (because there are many who have the same misunderstandings that you do) and countered it nicely.

 

[lifegazer]

Tom already has in his second post. He anticipated your argument (because there are many who have the same misunderstandings that you do) and countered it nicely.

Tom's contradictions:
Axiom (1): Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).

Axiom (2): ~P1: Subject S can know that p with certainty, for at least some p.

LOL. What a crock of you-know-what.
Make-up your minds what it is you want to believe and then get back to me. I'll be over the road reforming science, if you need me.

 

[scribble]

I, for one, misunderestimated lifegazer.

I'm impressed he could tell this thread was about him. He knows more than I gave him credit for.

Edit: Oh, wait... was this stuff you posted to lifegazer previously? My mistake.

 

[BoulderHead`]

Boulder, I need someone to back me up here. Are you backing me up?

Well, the first part of what you said gave me pause to consider, true, and I admit to liking the way this pause felt (makes me think). I thought your latter comments went to prove a point made by Tom, but I don’t want to pass judgment until I’ve taken the time to read and think over the entire post.
I saw this stuff at PF but didn’t take the time to read it. For me to believe I have a firm understanding takes a heaping amount of critical thinking, re-reading, and time. This is especially true for me because I have to translate it into the language I think in (not English), mill it around, then retranslate again. As this is a lengthy post, it really tests my ability to "hang in there", haha. So, I’m going to consider the matter further and see what begins to makes the most sense to me. For giving me that much, if nothing else, I thank you both.

[edit}
Oops, I forgot to answer your question and confess that mostly I was looking to nail you with that quote in that other thread you started. Sorry about the confusion on that.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Since it's always conceptually possible to distinguish between "the way the world works" and "the way we think it works", the assumption that our ideas are accurate can never be justified.

And since there's no way we can ever demonsrate such correspondence, the position is invalid.

 

[Upchurch]

Tom's contradictions:
Axiom (1): Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).

Axiom (2): ~P1: Subject S can know that p with certainty, for at least some p.

That is a very impressive display of selective reading you've got there.

If you had actually read the post rather than just focusing on the "one liners" you would have realized that "Axiom (2)" is merely Tom's articulation of the potential paradox, not an assertion of what he is claiming.

If you need it boiled down into small bites that you can understand, focus on this, his actual conclusion:

Originally posted by Tom
Non-Absolutist, Non-Paradoxical Epistemology
I believe that my reconstruction of the theory contained in your quote avoids the paradox by making the above distinctions, and it would read as follows.


P1a. Subject S cannot know that p with certainty, for any item of a posteriori knowledge p.
P1b. Subject S can know that q with certainty, for any item of priori knowledge q.
P2. Statements P1a. and P1b. are items of a priori knowledge.


Goodbye paradox.

Now, try again.

 

[Beleth]

LOL. What a crock of you-know-what.

lifegazer, either your reading comprehension skills are not what I expected, or your log skills aren't. Either way, I am starting to reconsider the compliment I paid you in the Flame War forum.

Your objection is completely addressed in Tom's second post. It's a common objection, which I'm sure is why Tom discussed it in such detail.

 

[Beleth]

Don't believe everything they teach you Tom. Have the balls to challenge it.

Don't reject everything they teach you, lifegazer. Have the objectivity to consider it.

 

[Tom]

Our ability to reason precedes our logical-constructs.
Our ability to reason is not a logical-construct (a system of logic), since the ability to reason must precede any logical-constructs that are built upon this ability.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply here, but the ability to reason is not a system of logic. Our ability to reason constructs systems of logic.

You don't understand.

Logic is not "the ability to reason". Logic determines what reasoning is valid, and what reasoning is not valid.

Tom: Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).

LG: Are you stating this as an absolute truth?

Yes, I am. This should be obvious, because the premise of every argument is the conclusion of a more basic argument. To prove every premise, I would have to go through an infinite regression of argumentation, which is impossible.

If yes, then your axiom is self-defeating because you've just said that all axioms are assumptions.
If no, then your axiom is a belief and not worth the paper it's written on. Either way, your axiom is worthless.

This is a false dichotomy, and you have obviously not read my posts very carefully.

Just because something is axiomatic, that does not make it false. It does not even make its truth value unknowable. It just makes it unprovable, within the formal system of logic.

Don't believe everything they teach you Tom. Have the balls to challenge it.

Why don't you have the balls to read it?

 

[Tom]

Tom's contradictions:
Axiom (1): Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).

Axiom (2): ~P1: Subject S can know that p with certainty, for at least some p.

That's not a contradiction. The first post laid the groundwork for the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The "at least some p" in what you call "Axiom 2" refers to the former type.

 

[Tom]

Did you even read what I said, upchurch?

Yes, and what we're telling you is that what you wrote is an idiotic misconstrual of what I wrote.

I destroyed Tom's whole system of logic before he'd written a hundred words of his posts.

Really? You destroyed propositional logic, inductive logic, the analytic/synthetic distinction, and epistemology in one stroke?

Guess again.

 

[Tom]

I, for one, misunderestimated lifegazer.

I'm impressed he could tell this thread was about him. He knows more than I gave him credit for.

Edit: Oh, wait... was this stuff you posted to lifegazer previously? My mistake.

Yeah, he asked me to present an argument at Physics Forums in a thread entitled, Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System

He said:

Try presenting an argument of your own. I can promise you that I will try to refute that argument directly. I will analyse each statement you make, and look for errors of reason within those statements (if there are any).

He ignored the argument when I presented it (I'm talking zero response), and here at JREF he just picks out lines at random and rambles on incoherently about them.

Ho-Hum, so much for that promise.

 

[BoulderHead`]

Originally posted by lifegazer;

Our ability to reason precedes our logical-constructs.
Our ability to reason is not a logical-construct (a system of logic), since the ability to reason must precede any logical-constructs that are built upon this ability.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply here, but the ability to reason is not a system of logic. Our ability to reason constructs systems of logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom;

You don't understand.
Logic is not "the ability to reason". Logic determines what reasoning is valid, and what reasoning is not valid.

Tom, I can't tell for certain if you see his point. His quote above is what I found personally interesting, btw. My comment is that LG cannot (or will not) entertain the point you have brought forward because he believes that reason trumps logic. Or to put it another way; reason is primordial to logic, that’s what he seems to be saying. So I think that even if he understood fully that logic is the theory of correct reasoning, he would reject it in favor of what he holds in higher regard.

As an aside;
You might call it belief or intuition. Or it might be akin to the illative sense of John Henry Newman.

Some details here on Newman’s illative sense (ignore religious parts not central to an understanding);
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/aug1998p10_553.html

But whatever it is, the bottom line surely spells; impasse.


PS
Good studying over your post, it helped my thinking, and I must say that the blue and red text was a very worthwhile touch.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It seems credulity trumps both logic and reason.

[sigh]

 

[Thomas]

My contribution to this thread must be the categorical syllogisms.

I think it's a good idea to get a an overview of the most basic rules of logic. In this effort syllogisms shouldn't be left out, they are quite significant when dealing with logic.

For a start,

Boolean:

All logic solutions is based on five basic operators:

AND(conjunction), OR(disjunction), NOT(negation), IF... THEN(conditional) and IF and ONLY IF(biconditional).

From this system we get the truth tables:

http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/logic/lognot/node1.html

From these basic operators we get the statements All, Some and None, which leads us to,

Categorical syllogisms:

This is the structure of a syllogism (standard form):

A = B (major premise)
B = C (minor premise)
-------
A = C (conclusion)

Definition:

Catagorical Syllogism – An argument composed of 3 categorical statements.
Middle Term – The term in a categorical syllogism that occurs once in each premise.
Major Term – The term in a categorical syllogism that is the predicate of the conclusion.
Minor Term - The term in a categorical syllogism that is the subject of the conclusion.
Major Premise – The premise of a categorical syllogism containing the major term.
Minor Premise – The premise of a categorical syllogism containing the minor term.

For an in-depth description follow this link:

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Out of the 256 permutations of categorical syllogisms, only 24 have been accepted as valid, this number have then being limited to only 15 with the advancement of some techniques of modern logic. The Venn diagrams to be exact.

Ron Blatt have made a brilliant program to evalutate the truth-value of a given syllogism using Venn diagrams:

http://ronblatt.tripod.com/venndiagram.html

This leads us further to an in-depth view of logical fallacies. Here is a quite concise overview of logical fallacies (also concerning syllogisms):

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

Syllogisms are very often used as conclusive evidence on this forum, so I thought this contribution to this thread was called for.

For a complete understanding of the human nature concerning reasoning, we have to gather the study of logic, with the study of cognition and last but not least, evolutionary psychology. Since the cognitive sciences are quite new, and evolutionary psychology is even younger, we still have quite an effort infront of us.

Anyway, good science most be based on a combination of healthy logic and empiric data, we can't rely entirely on one side or the other. Observations (senses) give us the data, and logic give us the skill to process it. I think i'll just stop right here - for now anyway.


/thomas