[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 65 KB, 1024x683, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:47:11 2015 No.7097941 [Reply] [Original]

How do we know logic is true?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:52:33 2015 No.7097945 It's only logical...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:59:08 2015 No.7097952 >>7097941 Read Kant's Logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:03:00 2015 No.7097959 >>7097941 Read Hegel's Science of Logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:49:17 2015 No.7097992 File: 23 KB, 501x585, stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You must assume it in order to do anything. This is basic Aristotelianism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:54:48 2015 No.7097998 http://youtu.be/SdqwuHHTAO4?t=40s

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:04:57 2015 No.7098004 >>7097941 Because it works. Also, careful with how you define "true".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:13:47 2015 No.7098009 >>7097941 Logic can't be true. Truth is logical harmony between propositions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:20:15 2015 No.7098019 >>7097941 >>7097992 >>7098004 >>7098009 Bumping this for an actual answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:22:52 2015 No.7098021 >>7097941 It is merely an assumption. Their is nothing in the universe which we know of right now which says it has to make sense.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:27:28 2015 No.7098023
File: 82 KB, 750x600, full_retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Logic itself is not a logical proposition. It cannot be assigned a truth value and therefore "logic is true" is a meaningless statement. It's like asking "what is the numerical value of math" or "how do you synthesize chemistry".

Can philosotards please stop talking bullshit about fields they don't understand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:57:58 2015 No.7098044 Philosophy is for tryhard faggots that are too stupid and lazy to actually learn anything. All it takes to be a Philosopher is a lack of common sense and heavy doses of ignorance and arrogance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:02:36 2015 No.7098052 Well, let's assume logic isn't true. Therefore, logic is true checkm8 atheists

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:05:33 2015 No.7098055 >>7098052 How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:26:08 2015 No.7098068 >>7098044 >not understanding what philopshy is. Stay uneducated plebian

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:33:51 2015 No.7098077 >>7098023 >Can philosotards please stop talking bullshit about fields they don't understand? >about fields they don't understand? philosotards fucking invented logic you dumb cunt

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:38:25 2015 No.7098084

>>7098004
How do you know it works? Because it worked in the past? Oh well, you are assuming Inductive Reasoning, a part of Logic, is true. So you are assuming Logic is true to conclude Logic is true, and falls in the Munchhausen trilemma, so this does not help OP.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:42:09 2015 No.7098087

>>7098044
Philosophy accepts every thought, but only the great school of thoughts, where you find a big consensus, are studied and praised. So, no, you can't do Philosophy being stupid, lazy, lacking common sense or whatever, because otherwise you will never be taken seriously.
Also, you are using Philosophy to reach such conclusion, whether you want it or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:44:35 2015 No.7098091 >>7098077 Logic is a field of math. Philosophy's only contribution to it was the name. Before logic was formalized by mathematicians, it was merely a vague notion of "using reasoning".

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:50:30 2015 No.7098097

In German we got a term, I want to introduce to the discussion namely ''wirken''.
Wirken can be translated to: to work + to appear + to seem

''Wirklichkeit'' means reality/ actuality in German.
Reality in our perception is something that appears + seems + works.

I also want to introduce a second aspect, a question:
''How do I know that I can trust what I see is real?''
The relationship between me and the object is something I experience, it appears + seems + works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:59:02 2015 No.7098106 >>7098097 Same problem of another anonymous. You are assuming Induction is true to conclude Logic is true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:59:55 2015 No.7098108 >>7097941 It's axiomatic, you inbred shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:01:36 2015 No.7098113 >>7098108 I assume you are saying it can't be proved. Can you prove it can't be proved without using Logic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:08:04 2015 No.7098121 >>7098097 >roundabout way of stating something that sounds profound yet is both obvious and pointless at the same time hey guys I found the philosopher

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:27:28 2015 No.7098143 >>7097941 You are right, logic it's a social construct of the patriarchy and should therefore be eliminated

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:29:20 2015 No.7098144 >>7098106 I don't say something is true, I'm just saying that the relationship between me and the object is something I experience. What would you answer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:36:44 2015 No.7098148 File: 211 KB, 500x500, 1330983949379.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7097941 Because god told me.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:55:18 2015 No.7098171
File: 48 KB, 453x604, 7c6e817f3284ba819715e7081d884707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You can't prove logic is real with logic. Same bullshit as you can't prove the universe is real with things from this universe. Philosophy comes up with circular masturbation like this all the time. Frankly they can just go fuck themselves.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:06:01 2015 No.7098183

>>7098084
Any rational motivation would be ineffective, since those can be reduced to usage of logic. The reason I am convinced it works is simple, it is because my instinct is telling me it is.
Note that this claim is irrational by definition, as do all 'valid' reasonings. Obviously, any further rational argument is now rendered futile. This goes to show that finding the origin of knowledge is a futile effort, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:11:26 2015 No.7098193 >>7098113 Define 'proving without using logic'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:12:45 2015 No.7098197 >>7098193 Define 'define'

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:16:26 2015 No.7098203

>>7098193
> I guess.
Perfect.
I am the anonymous you replied to.
Well, I personally am a foundationalist. There is only 2 things I believe and that everything else I derive from: Inductive reasoning and my past sensorial information.
>>7098193
Convince me it is true without using Logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:16:53 2015 No.7098205 >>7098197 Define 'define'. But seriously, a 'proof' has no generally agreed upon meaning if you are not using logic. The question is impossible to anwser, because the requirement is not clear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:18:03 2015 No.7098206 >>7098197 To define is to find a sentence that means the same as the expression.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:19:50 2015 No.7098210 >>7098197 Isn't this about localisation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:26:44 2015 No.7098226 >>7098197 More elaboarte: >Defining in this context Trying to ''find'' a code in order to make a certain experience locatable.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:34:23 2015 No.7098243

>>7098203
>There is only 2 things I believe and that everything else I derive from: Inductive reasoning and my past sensorial information.
Sounds reasonable. Sensorial information is rather useful to have, but I'm not sure why inductive reasoning for beliefs is needed. Sure, it is useful for making predictions and approximations, but it doesn't really help me believe stuff.

>Convince me it is true without using Logic.
So if I am some sort of master hypnotist that can make you believe 'logic is true', I would be capable of 'proving' that logic is true, by your definition. This seems rather silly (to avoid using logical terms) and quite unhelpful. It seems rather grim too. Appartently, acceptance of some sort of dogma would be a reasonable method for determining whether the foundations of formal science are valid. Note that this is not an attempt to convince you, but I have convinced myself that attempting to 'prove' this is not a meaningful excersice. I'd better go do some algebra.

Perhaps an anwser to the OP would be that 'true' is a rather imprecise and vague notion outside of logic, as is equality('is'), which would mean that an absolute anwser would be quit unlikely, although personally I'd go for a 'probably not'

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:53:10 2015 No.7098283

>>7098243
I think it's important to find a solid foundation for your conclusions.
The problem is that Logic seems to be impossible to prove (you can conclude that by inductive reasoning), so it's useless to keep searching for its foundation. Instead, one should just assume a set of logic rules is true and acquire "knowledge" from its usage.
In this sense, I think Logic is more important than Algebra. The same way Calculus 1 is more important than Calculus 2, simply because the former is required for the latter, but the opposite is not true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:00:09 2015 No.7098296 >>7098283 >In this sense, I think Logic is more important than Algebra. Perhaps, but I won't be having an exam in Logic shortly. ;^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:04:22 2015 No.7098302 >>7097992 so it's like religion

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:06:27 2015 No.7098308 >>7098023 What about the statement "Does logic work?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:18:28 2015 No.7098335 >>7098302 What?

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:36:37 2015 No.7098382

you can prove logic is real because using logic is the simple mental process of making sense. if there was no logic, there wouldn't be any sense in anything really. i belive if you look around, you can see that we live in a world filled with explanations, and these explanations might not be true, nonetheless these explanations are a creation of this mental process to create sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 21:33:58 2015 No.7099446 >>7097941 Because first we know true is logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 21:36:06 2015 No.7099453 Logic is reasoning used to assess situation according to validity. Never detract from the truth. That is logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 1 03:43:09 2015 No.7100044 >>7097941 Reality is a lot more strict about how its constituents behave than the English language is. Like Hitler compared to an RA. You just broke a dorm rule, but I'm pretty sure the world is still turning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 1 04:35:22 2015 No.7100101 >>7097941 >How do we know What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 1 04:42:34 2015 No.7100111 >>7098091 >merely a vague notion of "using reasoning" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 1 04:43:54 2015 No.7100115 File: 1.89 MB, 1320x1650, Chrysippos_BM_1846.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7100111 Forgot my pic.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]