It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Is logic really logical?

page: 2
9
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:14 PM

Logic is the analysis of validity. It is a tool you use to deduce a true claim (or valid claim) from a false claim (or invalid).

You do not use logic to try to deduce why a person likes the taste of Pepsi more than the taste of Coke. That is outside the scope of logic.

Try actually learning logic and what it is.
edit on 13-4-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:24 PM

Biigs

Lets take it to extremes for an example, lets say theres a young lady and old man and a baby on an island, technically the best chance of survival would be the man and the woman, without a baby to worry about. but no one is going to let a baby die.

You can't use logic to solve this problem, this is not a logic problem, your example is a question of morality.

Example of a logic problem:

If every weeble is a wooble, and every wooble is a wobble, is it true that every wobble is a weeble?

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:55 PM

Logic would seem to be over rated ,especially when we have different ways of looking at things.

No. A thing can only be true or false. It cannot be both at the same time. If a statement is deduced to be true, it doesn't matter if a person disagrees with it, the statement continues being true. Subjectivity has no room in logic.

I am sitting in my house right now. This statement is true. Even if I did not like the outcome of the statement (true), I am sitting in my house, so my personal feelings do not change the outcome of the statement.

All we need to be incorrect is to have one false piece of information that is only a guess about, because of a theory we hold onto to be true

I am not really sure what you are trying to say here.

Contrary facts will be either ignored or twisted to maintain the theory...peace

That does not make the system of logic "less logical" as you claim. That simply highlights human subjectivity, and the desire to not want to let go of erroneous concepts when those concepts have been shown to be false. Or vice versa.

You seem to be confused. Personal preference does not make a statement true or false, nor does personal preference factor into the validity or invalidity of a preposition.

The earth is not flat. This statement is true. It does not matter how you feel, you could wish that the earth were actually flat, but your feelings do not change the outcome of the statement. It continues to be true, even if you don't like it.

edit on 13-4-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:16 PM

Ok lets consider your statement of sitting in your house right now .Basically you are making a correct statement but what if for some reason unknown to you ,you didn't really own it ? There are many things at play and although it could be argued that you do it could also be shown that you do not based on a law you are unaware of ...I can show you places on the earth where it could be considered to be flat but without knowing the full extent of the matter logic is slightly ambiguous . I think we do agree a lot more then disagree :>) would that be true ?

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:23 PM

"Logic is the analysis of validity. It is a tool you use to deduce a true claim (or valid claim) from a false claim (or invalid)." But how valid that claim may be at the time of analysis is dependent on having all the data to do so .As we learn more we find some truths of yesterday do not apply today .Our logic at one point failed to determine the truth of the matter and so we took a guess and decided it was good enough for Govt. work lol

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:34 PM

NarcolepticBuddha

ketsuko
logic is not going to help you solve the dilemma between Coke and Pepsi or Green and Blue. There simply is not way to clearly and logically choose.

Exactly my point. However, some people like to pretend that a logical mind is the gateway to intellectual salvation. I'm just saying that from the simple (colas and colors,) to the complex (moral exercises, or issues such as war v. peace) that there is still "simply no way to clearly and logically choose."

Any decision someone makes is going to inevitably consist of many factors including: emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc. Logical arguments are fine, but they're still woven with things such as emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc.

And tend to reject logical arguments with emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc.

edit on 13-4-2014 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)

The problem we have today is that no one (at least in the US) receives formal education in logic or formal reasoning. There are some things that brush up against it, and of course all of math is more or less logic. However, you don't actually receive education in recognizing what is and is not logic.

And most of public discourse is now entirely emotion based.

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:02 PM

the2ofusr1

Ok lets consider your statement of sitting in your house right now .Basically you are making a correct statement but what if for some reason unknown to you ,you didn't really own it?

The matter of ownership is irrelevant, I meant "my house" in the subjective use of the phrase (even if you live with your parents, you are still inclined to refer to it as "my house" during casual conversation). I do not own this house, I rent it, but in the subjective sense it is "mine."

Either way, I am still sitting in the house that I live in, so the statement is still true. Semantics does not change the outcome of the statement.

There are many things at play and although it could be argued that you do it could also be shown that you do not based on a law you are unaware of.

Such a thing would be irrelevant as I pointed out above. A law that I am not aware of does not change my current, physical state of sitting in the house that I live in. Your counter argument would only be seen as a red herring.

I can show you places on the earth where it could be considered to be flat but without knowing the full extent of the matter logic is slightly ambiguous.

Human perspective is ambiguous, logic is not. If a person perceives that the earth is flat, but the earth is actually round, but they conclude that the earth is flat based upon their perception-then their statement is false, even if their perceptions say otherwise. They would simply falsely believe that the statement is true because of what they perceive to be, as opposed to seeing what objectively is.

The earth is round. This is true. If, in the future, god--or something with the ability to--changes the shape of earth into a triangle, that would not change the outcome of the statement at the time that I made it. The earth was round when the statement was made, so the statement itself was true for a time, but would no longer be true when the shape of the earth is changed into a triangle.

A thing can change over time. This would affect the outcome of an argument. Human perception, though, can stand in contradiction if what is, so human perception cannot make a statement true or false.

I think we do agree a lot more then disagree :>) would that be true?

Maybe. I disagree with your claim that logic is illogical. I think you are confusing human perception/subjectivity with the discipline and study of logic. They are two very different things. Logic was a tool that was created to combat the infallibility of human perception. The problem stems from the fact that people have some vague notion of what logic is, without ever having studied it. So there is a lot of confusion pertaining to what is considered logical.

Like in your opening post you stated that you see logic as a popularity contest. Logic does not care about the whims of the majority--in fact--look up the appeal to majority.

edit on 13-4-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:16 PM

Well it does seem to me that we do agree in a truthful sense of the word logic .It is a very misunderstood word and the ambiguity I was suggesting relating to it comes from people who would twist logic to make their truth fit their theory .I guess that is why we don't get a classical education in school . With our ability to use grammar logic and rhetoric ,the masses wouldn't be fooled by logical fallacies ,that most politicians use to get elected . It becomes a real challenge to pick up on when academia does it ....peace

top topics

9