Reason and Observation

[lifegazer]

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

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.

??
I checked that link. It directed me to a thread started by another poster - not you - and I did participate in that thread... even with you.
Don't forget that you kicked me out in May too (the month that discussion was taking place). Possibly the reason I didn't participate much. lol

I didn't have time for detailed posts last night. But I will have alot more to say about your posts before the weekend is out.

 

[Tom]

??
I checked that link. It directed me to a thread started by another poster - not you

Right, it was LWSleeth's thread. The exchange between you and myself is in that thread, as is the argument that with which I started this thread.

- and I did participate in that thread... even with you.

Not in regards to this argument, you didn't.

Don't forget that you kicked me out in May too

That would have been Greg, but OK.

(the month that discussion was taking place). Possibly the reason I didn't participate much. lol

No, you were active in that thread after I posted the argument. You just didn't address it.

 

[Tom]

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.

(snip)

That's a nice summary. I especially like the link to the interactive Venn Diagram page. I have been looking for something exactly like it for some online notes on Logic that I have been writing.

I omitted the discussion on logic, because the only facts about logic that I have invoked are:

1. Deductive logic can be used to analyze the validity of arguments with certainty.
2. Deductive logic cannot be used to find the truth value of statements that pertain to a posteriori knowledge.
3. Inductive arguments can be used to determine the truth value of statements that pertain to a posteriori knowledge, but not with certainty.
4. The systems of deductive and inductive logic are the only ones available.

I had really hoped that this thread would focus on epistemology, but since the theory itself is based on logic, it might be helpful to have your post to refer to later.

 

[Tom]

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.

Well, whether or not that's what he means, let me head it off at the pass. What is expressed above is what I would call a category error. Reasoning is something that people do. Logic formalizes the rules by which reasoning ought to be done. Logic is a set of prescriptive laws, such as those that come from a legislative body. Continuing with that analogy, saying that "reason trumps logic" is like saying that "actions trump the constitution".

Sure, people can break the rules, but when they do, they are doing something illegal.

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

I doubt that this is what he means, although I'm sure he will explain for himself. He has argued vehemently against this idea in the past, insisting that everything be proven (never mind the fact that he gets terribly annoyed with people who ask him to do the same!) In fact, this is closer to what I mean:

Not every truth can be proven, and yet some things that cannot be proven can be known to be true.

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

Thank you.

Sometimes using breaks, colors, italics, and bold font at the right place can help make a long post more digestable.


edit: fixed a bracket

 

[RandFan]

lifegazer,

I want you to know that I read what you wrote very carefully. I thought about it and I did not dismiss it out of hand.

I think that what you wrote was interesting and worthy of discussion. I need to digest it a bit better in order to discuss it.

To tell the truth I am still digesting Tom's opening post. I love logic and philosophy but I'm a bit slow.

I'll get back to you. I just want you to know that I am not looking at all this with the assumption that you are wrong. Though I have to say that your behavior in the past gives me reason to doubt that you are correct.

RandFan.

 

[lifegazer]

Never mind Tom... I'll be addressing all the relevant points of your posts this time.
The first thing I want to address is this:

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

Firstly, I should thank Boulderhead for his comments:
"... 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."

... Let me draw your attention, Tom, to the part of your statement that I have underlined: "Logic determines what reasoning is valid, and what reasoning is not valid."
... I would dispute this as explained in my first statement, above.
It is reason which has constructed the system of logic which, supposedly, determines what reason is and is not valid. Systems of logic, like mathematics, are a construct of the reason which is innate within mankind.

With that in mind, let's contemplate another related statement of yours: "First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.".
... Here, you contend that all constructs of reasoning (logical systems) cannot be proven right within those systems themselves.
The first thing I want to say about this, is that it automatically challenges your own statement - for if we cannot prove that systems of logic are "right", then we cannot prove whether this logical statement of yours is right either... for it too is a construct of the reasoning which posited it. So, it's another self-defeating statement.
The second thing I want to say about this, is that all constructs of reason are challengeable. This is not to say that they are always wrong - but they are definitely challengeable. Thus, you cannot simply preach/quote established/ancient logical systems or statements as the basis of your proceeding logic and expect me to agree with you because "Mister Important said this 300 years ago (or whenever), therefore I am right and you are wrong."
Thirdly, it's impossible to refute the concept of absolutes, because to do so is an absolute statement itself.
Lastly, though constructs of reason are questionable in themselves (though not necessarily wrong), there is no argument which can challenge the potency of reason itself. It is entirely possible that reason alone could fathom the nature of existence.

Edit for afterthought: Since reason is not a system of logic but is the essence of all systems of logic, it (reason) is not even challenged/bracketed by your aforementioned statement ("First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself."). I.e., your statement challenges constructs/systems of reason, but not reason herself.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Thanks Thomas,

I love syllogisms. Probably because they are rudimentary and I can understand them so well.

 

[Tom]

... Let me draw your attention, Tom, to the part of your statement that I have underlined: "Logic determines what reasoning is valid, and what reasoning is not valid."
... I would dispute this as explained in my first statement, above.
It is reason which has constructed the system of logic which, supposedly, determines what reason is and is not valid. Systems of logic, like mathematics, are a construct of the reason which is innate within mankind.

Of course, anyone would agree that what we call "logic" was formulated by reasoning. But that does not change the fact that there is both valid and invalid reasoning, and that logic equips one to tell the difference between the two.

With that in mind, let's contemplate another related statement of yours: "First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.".
... Here, you contend that all constructs of reasoning (logical systems) cannot be proven right within those systems themselves.
The first thing I want to say about this, is that it automatically challenges your own statement - for if we cannot prove that systems of logic are "right", then we cannot prove whether this logical statement of yours is right either... for it too is a construct of the reasoning which posited it. So, it's another self-defeating statement.

First, it's not self-defeating if you look at the most basic rules of logic (from which the more complicated ones are proven), which I would contend are self-evident. Thomas posted a link to those rules in his post; you can see for yourself. All the rules represent abstractions of statements that one would encounter in arguments.

For instance, a statement of the form:

p or q

is true if either or both of the component statements are true, and false if and only if both are false.

Does that really require a proof?

Second, I was making a vague reference to incompleteness with that comment you noted. But even though it is the case that sufficiently powerful systems are either incomplete or inconsistent, it is not the case that we cannot prove statements in those systems, and neither is it the case that we cannot prove that the statement was proved in that system.

That is, not all propositions are undecidable in second- and higher-order logic. In fact, I can't think of any proposition that is relevant to ontology that would be plagued by this, because "The Goedel Sentence" is a statement whose paradoxical character arises from its syntactical form, not about anything that exists.

Third, while there is no proof of every basic building block of logic (which is impossible, as an infinite number of arguments would have to be constructed), we can prove which inferences are invalid, by counterexamples.

The second thing I want to say about this, is that all constructs of reason are challengeable. This is not to say that they are always wrong - but they are definitely challengeable. Thus, you cannot simply preach/quote established/ancient logical systems or statements as the basis of your proceeding logic and expect me to agree with you because "Mister Important said this 300 years ago (or whenever), therefore I am right and you are wrong."

There's nothing for me to go on here.

Do you have a challenge to logic to present?

Thirdly, it's impossible to refute the concept of absolutes, because to do so is an absolute statement itself.

The main point of my second post discussed this in detail, which you evidently have not gotten to yet.

Lastly, though constructs of reason are questionable in themselves (though not necessarily wrong), there is no argument which can challenge the potency of reason itself. It is entirely possible that reason alone could fathom the nature of existence

There is an argument that can challenge the ability of humans to determine absolute truths about existence. In fact, it's the argument that I made in my 2 opening posts. Sure, we can "fathom" existence, but that is not the same thing as discovering truths about it with certainty.

I'll ask you the same thing that I asked you at Physics Forums (same thread I linked you to before):

What is this "superlogic" that can determine not only validity, but also truth values of statements with certainty?

Edit for afterthought: Since reason is not a system of logic but is the essence of all systems of logic, it (reason) is not even challenged/bracketed by your aforementioned statement ("First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself."). I.e., your statement challenges constructs/systems of reason, but not reason herself.

I'm not challenging reason itself, I'm saying that there are limits to what reasoning can do by itself. As I said, the rules of logic codify what constitutes valid reasoning. Since there are limits to the tools we have by which to form sound arguments, and since reasoning doesn''t get any better than "sound", then it follows that there are limits to reasoning itself.

You're right about one thing:

Logic is not a challenge to reason. It is a formalization of the rules that make reasoning as good as possible.

edit: fixed a quote bracket

 

[lifegazer]

Of course, anyone would agree that what we call "logic" was formulated by reasoning. But that does not change the fact that there is both valid and invalid reasoning, and that logic equips one to tell the difference between the two.

Tom, if reason constructs systems of logic, then reason equips one to tell the difference between the two. However, the reasoning which equips one to tell the difference between the two is always questionable, since constructs of logic are always questionable. But reason herself cannot be proven to be questionable - only the systems she constructs are questionable.
Thus, the system-of-logic which you think determines what is valid and invalid reasoning is questionable. However, the potency of reason herself is not, since we have nothing to challenge the potency of reason with.
Reason cannot challenge the potency of reason and win the day, for whatever argument is produced applies directly to that reasoned argument itself (self-defeating arguments). That's why I discard what Wittgenstein says.

it's not self-defeating if you look at the most basic rules of logic (from which the more complicated ones are proven),

All systems-of-logic are questionable, so don't cite these "rules" (constructs of reason) as though they were the words of God itself.

For instance, a statement of the form:

p or q

is true if either or both of the component statements are true, and false if and only if both are false.

Does that really require a proof?

The statement is meaningless/useless until you prove that p and/or q are false or true.

That is, not all propositions are undecidable in second- and higher-order logic. In fact, I can't think of any proposition that is relevant to ontology that would be plagued by this, because "The Goedel Sentence" is a statement whose paradoxical character arises from its syntactical form, not about anything that exists.

I'd like to discuss Goedel's theorem one day, since I think it's ultimately questionable. I'll discuss it here if you want, since it's probably significant to this discussion. State your understanding of that theorem, and I'll address it. Your choice.

 

[Tom]

Tom, if reason constructs systems of logic, then reason equips one to tell the difference between the two. However, the reasoning which equips one to tell the difference between the two is always questionable, since constructs of logic are always questionable.

You are making a blanket statement of doubt on logic without saying why you doubt it. What specifically is there to doubt about the way deductions are carried out in logic? All of the rules are self-evident.

But reason herself cannot be proven to be questionable - only the systems she constructs are questionable.

Thus, the system-of-logic which you think determines what is valid and invalid reasoning is questionable.

And your questions are......?

Again, there's nothing for me to go on here.

However, the potency of reason herself is not, since we have nothing to challenge the potency of reason with.

What is, "the potency of reason"?

Reason cannot challenge the potency of reason and win the day, for whatever argument is produced applies directly to that reasoned argument itself (self-defeating arguments).

This has nothing to do with the discussion. No one is pitting reason against reason here. Read my second post, I have already addressed the paradox of, "There are no absolute truths".

That's why I discard what Wittgenstein says.

Translation: "I have not read Wittgenstein, but I am sure that he's not worth reading anyway."

But that's OK, because I'm not Wittgenstein, I'm Tom.

All systems-of-logic are questionable, so don't cite these "rules" (constructs of reason) as though they were the words of God itself.

If you are going to question them, then question them. Until then, I am going to continue using them as though they are correct, because that is in fact the case.

The statement is meaningless/useless until you prove that p and/or q are false or true.

Translation: "I don't know what it means, so it's meaningless".

It's not meaningless, it is the formalization of "or" statements. That is, given the truth values of p and q, and the meaning of the "or" operator, we can determine the truth value of the compound statement p or q.

But you are getting close to one of my main points.

Deduction can only tell us things about the logical forms of statements and inferences, and it does so with certainty. It is when we try to determine the truth values of the compound statements that we lose hold of "certainty", because the only way to determine truth values of statements pertaining to a posteriori knowledge is with induction, which does not provide absolute support for its conclusions.

I'd like to discuss Goedel's theorem one day, since I think it's ultimately questionable. I'll discuss it here if you want, since it's probably significant to this discussion. State your understanding of that theorem, and I'll address it. Your choice.

In another thread, at another time, if you don't mind (that is, unless someone here can demonstrate the relevance of Goedel to this topic). I don't think there's a need to get that formal to get at what this thread is about.

edit: typo

 

[BoulderHead`]

Where I'm heading

The problem, LG, is this;
You are able to look at certain arguments and make decisions on whether or not they have merit. If an argument is weak, it can be picked apart and have its weaknesses exposed. It seems an innate ability, true? But in practice, judgment isn’t arrived at in some helter-skelter fashion; there is a process at work.
Reason itself has been behind the codification of rules it knew could be relied upon (to one capacity or another). Rules that are able to assure the doom of certain types of arguments, btw.
So, while I agree that ability to reason precedes logic, the ability to reason correctly without logic becomes dubious.

Considering the nature of this thread, I would to ask a couple of questions;

1) Are you maintaining there is an alternate way to discover truths than through the use of logical argument?

If the answer is yes;

2) Can you elucidate in greatest possible detail, all there is to know about this method ?
(Are there any rules that can be shared with the reader, for example?)

 

[lifegazer]

From Tom's 2nd post:-

A Posteriori Knowledge
Of the a posteriori class, I cannot have certain knowledge. I can certainly have a valid argument that leads to a particular conclusion, but since the truth values of my premises cannot be known with certainty, then neither can that of the conclusion. All we can do is make the inductive evidence in support of the premises stronger, and this is done via experiential confirmation. I would define this type of demonstration not proof, but evidence.

Knowledge reasoned from the senses is said to be a posteriori. However if I say "I have sensory experiences.", how do we class this truth/fact?
If you want to be pedantic I might change this to "Something is having the sensory-experience of being me (applying to whomever is self-aware and reading this).".

In my opinion, this is different to a posteriori knowledge/fact because it doesn't deal with "things" derived/infered from the senses - it merely acknowledges the direct experience of the senses themselves.
Yet, it cannot be a priori knowledge since that knowledge deals with ideas independent of sensory experience.

Therein lies the shortfall of it all. And my own philosophy hinges upon this pivotal oversight.

In view of my argument, it is nonsensical to ask for a “proof of materialism”, for example, because materialism makes statements about physical objects and processes, which are not known a priori. All we can do is present “evidence for materialism”. One person may decide to accept it, and another may not. Such is the nature of the inductive beast.

But you cannot present any evidence for materialism. I discussed this in my science-reform thread.
... Knowledge derived from the sensations deals with "things" that are not real in themselves. What we observe is a representative abstract-universe. Science is the study of the mind's order of its own sensations that are yielding the intangible appearance of a universe "in here".
Physics is the study of "things" as sensed within the mind. Science says nothing about things external to the mind since science has no dealings with such entities.
You cannot provide any evidence for materialism (an external reality full of real things). You can only provide knowledge of the mind's own sensory order of illusory "things".

But in point of fact, no such superlogic exists, and when our RF friend demands a proof of something that is not known a priori, he is making a category error.

As I said to you in another post, reason constructs all logical systems/rules. However, these systems are always challengeable or potentially expandable.
I contend that your reasoning has made a category shortfall - failing to notice that the senses themselves are not a posteriori knowledge in the same sense that "things" known from the senses are.

 

[lifegazer]

So, while I agree that ability to reason precedes logic, the ability to reason correctly without logic becomes dubious.

Whether one is reasoning correctly is not dependent upon "the rules" but on the accuracy of those rules. If you read my previous post, you'll see that I have observed what I consider to be a flaw or shortfall in these rules.
Note also, that all logical systems are subject to future modification if the need arrives.

Considering the nature of this thread, I would to ask a couple of questions;

1) Are you maintaining there is an alternate way to discover truths than through the use of logical argument?

Not really, since I contend that my philosophy is completely rational. Yet I cannot get anyone to listen to me because they've been brainwashed into believing things like science is a philosophy itself, able to tell us things about the nature of reality.
I declare that science knows nothing about the nature of reality... it only knows about the order existing amongst illusory "things" of the mind's senses.
Now I'm having to address archaic philosophical rules. What a drag. But I'll do whatever it takes.

If the answer is yes;

2) Can you elucidate in greatest possible detail, all there is to know about this method ?
(Are there any rules that can be shared with the reader, for example?)

My philosophy begins with definite sensory awareness. Real experience. The experience of excrutiating pain, for example, is a real experience. No doubt about it. Hence, welcome to the realm of absoluteness/definiteness.
I do intend to present a concise overview of my philosophy in the near future, but this science-reform thing is taking time to complete. The reason I'm participating in this thread, is because
it's closely-related to that thread.

 

[lifegazer]

Any thoughts? I consider the above posts to be very important and relevant to my science-reform thread.

 

[Beleth]

Knowledge reasoned from the senses is said to be a posteriori. However if I say "I have sensory experiences.", how do we class this truth/fact?

Or, for that matter, how about its sister statement, "I am capable of reason"?

 

[uruk]

... Knowledge derived from the sensations deals with "things" that are not real in themselves. What we observe is a representative abstract-universe. Science is the study of the mind's order of its own sensations that are yielding the intangible appearance of a universe "in here".

Again all this boils down to a personal opinion. It has been shown to you in the past that nothing in that statement says anything of the actual existance or not existance of an actual external existance. It is just a choice that you made. Therefore your whole philosophy is hinged on an opinion. a simple choice.
How is your philosophy any different from any other?

 

[lifegazer]

Again all this boils down to a personal opinion. It has been shown to you in the past that nothing in that statement says anything of the actual existance or not existance of an actual external existance. It is just a choice that you made. Therefore your whole philosophy is hinged on an opinion. a simple choice.
How is your philosophy any different from any other?

I declare as fact that science is the study of the mind's own order of self-imposed illusory things.
I declare as fact, therefore, that science tells us absolutely nothing about an external reality.
Consequently, I declare that science is in dire need of reform.

 

[lifegazer]

Or, for that matter, how about its sister statement, "I am capable of reason"?

... I experience emotion.

Category shortfalls all.

 

[Thomas]

I declare as fact that science is the study of the mind's own order of self-imposed illusory things.
I declare as fact, therefore, that science tells us absolutely nothing about an external reality.

You know, almost any philosopher since the old greeks and up to this present day have raised those issues, I don't hope you consider it great news.

Consequently, I declare that science is in dire need of reform.

Well, couldn't you start with the declaration of your science-reform thread, and tell us how we should establish this revolutionary reform instead of just talking about it?

I should also remind you that this philosophy forum properly is better suited for that type of propositions. Evidence is quite essential for skeptics.

/thomas

 

[uruk]

I declare as fact that science is the study of the mind's own order of self-imposed illusory things.
I declare as fact, therefore, that science tells us absolutely nothing about an external reality.
Consequently, I declare that science is in dire need of reform.

Again, This just you stating what is ultimately your opinion.

If you believe this is so, fine. Everyone can believe what they want. Live and let live I say. Just don't tell me I have to believe what you believe.