posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
Dictionary entry: "1...the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference".
The words which strike me are 'principles' and 'reliable'. I will make an instant conclusion which is, the use of these two words indicate a full
lack of understanding of what 'logic' really is. Principles? Logic is only one principle by definition, so why the plural? Logic, by its very
self, must be more than reliable, it must be a factual conclusion using accepted facts. Accepted facts - I shot myself in the foot there. Accepted
means we 'agree' on a premise. Who is to say it is the ultimate fact without misunderstanding in any way? There is a difference between
principles, reliable facts and logic.
I concur that it is illogical of me to argue about logic, but why is it? It is only illogical if its positive pair, logic, is a factual idea. My
purpose of discussion is to see if we can prove (or not) that logic as a principle, is flawed. So, as it stands, it is indeed illogical because its
positive pair, logic, is currently a positive-state concept. However, for purpose of discussion, I am obliged to break tradition and remain against
logic (?) until the real concept of logic is discovered (or proveably not).
"It is illogical to assume your logical speculation is the most possible truth".
I did not say it is; I said "is it?". Does logic really, factually provide us with the most possible truth? What is beyond logic? Is logic as a
concept flawed by out lack of perspective?
"So the question becomes "is it illogical to think logic is logical"?"
The question does not become this; the question always was this
I thought it was about time for some real brain-bending from all the news stories and UFO's buzzing around.
Logical answers only, please