Use of Logic

[Speakpigeon]

Hi, people of this Earth,
We all want to make this planet great again and possibly to built a beautiful wall around our Solar System to keep them Aliens out. So how useful do you think being logical would be to achieve such a worthy objective?
David Deutsch talked about our knowledge of the universe possibly being infinite. So the question is:

How useful or even crucial do you think DEDUCTIVE LOGIC will be to keep increasing our store of useful knowledge about our world?

1. For all sorts of reason, deductive logic is NOT useful at all.
2. It's not really useful. What is useful is to know the facts of the world.
3. We don't know whether it's at all useful for anything.
4. We will have a better chance of understanding reality using deductive logic so It is quite useful.
5. It is necessary. We can't hope to develop our knowledge of the world without relying on our use of deductive logic.
6. We can't help using deductive logic so whatever we do will be as a result of using it so it's definitely useful.
7. It's certainly useful as part of the way humans reason but it would be more effective and therefore more useful if we could improve our understanding of how logic really works.

EB

 

[rousseau]

Logic isn't a tool, it's a necessary grammar inherent in language which is used to communicate.

 

[rousseau]

So in other words, for us to do anything we use logic to reach a good outcome, but using logic is just inherent in the process of doing. How well we use logic is another matter, which is highly contingent on what knowledge we have, and what outcomes we're actually trying to achieve.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So in other words, for us to do anything we use logic to reach a good outcome, but using logic is just inherent in the process of doing.

So it's not just for languages and not just for communicating, right?

How well we use logic is another matter, which is highly contingent on what knowledge we have, and what outcomes we're actually trying to achieve.

A logical argument, in deductive logic, is supposed to be valid or invalid irrespective of whether the premises are true or not. So, how could knowledge play a role in deductive logic?
EB

 

[Rayschism]

I personally have a lot of problems with logic.

Because in some ways, logic is like a religion.

It can be used to justify anything, and some people like to impose it onto other people.

But I also do view it as an important tool to be able to determine what is crap or not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I personally have a lot of problems with logic.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Even professional logicians have a problem there. I don't know how many of them there are, but possibly up to 80% of them don't even understand there's a really big problem and yet they are university professors.

Because in some ways, logic is like a religion.

In some ways, everything is like religion.

It can be used to justify anything, and some people like to impose it onto other people.

You can use a gun to do that. Or you can use the power of authority. Or you can use dishonesty and trickery. You can even use sheer stupidity and a lot of people actually do that. So, nothing really specific to logic. The only common factor is human beings, not logic.

But I also do view it as an important tool to be able to determine what is crap or not.

Presumably, determining what is crap or not is useful. So, what you say here seems to contradict your own answer to the poll.

Or are you saying that you don't know that it is an important tool but you believe it is?
EB

 

[Rayschism]

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Even professional logicians have a problem there. I don't know how many of them there are, but possibly up to 80% of them don't even understand there's a really big problem and yet they are university professors.

Because in some ways, logic is like a religion.

In some ways, everything is like religion.

It can be used to justify anything, and some people like to impose it onto other people.

You can use a gun to do that. Or you can use the power of authority. Or you can use dishonesty and trickery. You can even use sheer stupidity and a lot of people actually do that. So, nothing really specific to logic. The only common factor is human beings, not logic.

But I also do view it as an important tool to be able to determine what is crap or not.

Presumably, determining what is crap or not is useful. So, what you say here seems to contradict your own answer to the poll.

Or are you saying that you don't know that it is an important tool but you believe it is?
EB

I don't know what I am saying about logic in this specific thread.

All I know is, it is often treated like a religion, and misused, in that some people expect others to use it at all times, and if they do not, and have a disagreement, then it's okay to get mad and scream and yell at people for not using logic. Just like a religion.

But, it can be used to determine what is crap and what is not.

For example, let's take the claim that there is no gender, biological or socially.

This is a crap statement because it means things like:

There can be no homosexuality, since homosexuality is based upon the sexual attraction of the same gender, man to man, woman to woman.

If there is no biological gender, how can there be sexual attraction of any sort? If there is no gender, there is no homosexuality.

And the claim completely undermines things like homosexuality, so it can only be crap.

So, just one example of how logic alone can determine what is crap or not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Even professional logicians have a problem there. I don't know how many of them there are, but possibly up to 80% of them don't even understand there's a really big problem and yet they are university professors.


In some ways, everything is like religion.

It can be used to justify anything, and some people like to impose it onto other people.

You can use a gun to do that. Or you can use the power of authority. Or you can use dishonesty and trickery. You can even use sheer stupidity and a lot of people actually do that. So, nothing really specific to logic. The only common factor is human beings, not logic.

But I also do view it as an important tool to be able to determine what is crap or not.

Presumably, determining what is crap or not is useful. So, what you say here seems to contradict your own answer to the poll.

Or are you saying that you don't know that it is an important tool but you believe it is?
EB

I don't know what I am saying about logic in this specific thread.

I gathered that much.

All I know is, it is often treated like a religion, and misused, in that some people expect others to use it at all times, and if they do not, and have a disagreement, then it's okay to get mad and scream and yell at people for not using logic. Just like a religion.

People can pick up on pretty much anything and turn it into a religion. Just look at how some people consider guns.

But, it can be used to determine what is crap and what is not.

For example, let's take the claim that there is no gender, biological or socially.

This is a crap statement because it means things like:

There can be no homosexuality, since homosexuality is based upon the sexual attraction of the same gender, man to man, woman to woman.

If there is no biological gender, how can there be sexual attraction of any sort? If there is no gender, there is no homosexuality.

And the claim completely undermines things like homosexuality, so it can only be crap.

So, just one example of how logic alone can determine what is crap or not.

Ok, I'm good with your example. It's a bit shaky as to the wording but I get it.


Still, according to how most logic specialists in the West see it, there's something that's clearly outside logic here and that's the facts of the matter. For example, the fact that there are homosexual people. For most people it's a fact that there are homosexual people but the point is that in your reasoning here, this fact is not established using logic. Instead, like most people, you just assume from the start it's a fact that there are homosexual people. So you use this fact as a premise to your reasoning, so you have to have already decided that it is true that there are homosexual people even before you get to any conclusion as to gender.

Similarly, like most people, you think that the existence of homosexual people implies the existence of sexual differences. That this implication is true is also a fact. In your reasoning, you start by assuming this fact so it doesn't result from your reasoning.

The usefulness of your reasoning is in determining that genders necessarily exist. This is based on two premises: first that homosexuality requires sexual differences, i.e. genders, and second that there are homosexual people. The logic lies in seeing intuitively that the conclusion that genders exist is necessarily true once you assume the two premises.



Perhaps something that you might not understand is that you would still reason perfectly logically is you believed instead that for example there are not really homosexual people and your reasoning was that therefore it may be the case that there are no genders.

Or you could believe, like I do, that homosexuality does not imply in itself the existence of different sexes. In this case, the fact that there are homosexual people would not allow you to conclude that genders necessarily exist. It would be illogical to draw such a conclusion from the premises that there are homosexual people and that homosexuality does not imply the existence of different sexes.

This distinction shows why it's useful to make the distinction between logic on the one hand, and whatever you happen to believe are the facts that you can use as premises in your reasoning.
EB

 

[Rayschism]

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Even professional logicians have a problem there. I don't know how many of them there are, but possibly up to 80% of them don't even understand there's a really big problem and yet they are university professors.


In some ways, everything is like religion.

It can be used to justify anything, and some people like to impose it onto other people.

You can use a gun to do that. Or you can use the power of authority. Or you can use dishonesty and trickery. You can even use sheer stupidity and a lot of people actually do that. So, nothing really specific to logic. The only common factor is human beings, not logic.

But I also do view it as an important tool to be able to determine what is crap or not.

Presumably, determining what is crap or not is useful. So, what you say here seems to contradict your own answer to the poll.

Or are you saying that you don't know that it is an important tool but you believe it is?
EB

I don't know what I am saying about logic in this specific thread.

I gathered that much.

All I know is, it is often treated like a religion, and misused, in that some people expect others to use it at all times, and if they do not, and have a disagreement, then it's okay to get mad and scream and yell at people for not using logic. Just like a religion.

People can pick up on pretty much anything and turn it into a religion. Just look at how some people consider guns.

But, it can be used to determine what is crap and what is not.

For example, let's take the claim that there is no gender, biological or socially.

This is a crap statement because it means things like:

There can be no homosexuality, since homosexuality is based upon the sexual attraction of the same gender, man to man, woman to woman.

If there is no biological gender, how can there be sexual attraction of any sort? If there is no gender, there is no homosexuality.

And the claim completely undermines things like homosexuality, so it can only be crap.

So, just one example of how logic alone can determine what is crap or not.

Ok, I'm good with your example. It's a bit shaky as to the wording but I get it.


Still, according to how most logic specialists in the West see it, there's something that's clearly outside logic here and that's the facts of the matter. For example, the fact that there are homosexual people. For most people it's a fact that there are homosexual people but the point is that in your reasoning here, this fact is not established using logic. Instead, like most people, you just assume from the start it's a fact that there are homosexual people. So you use this fact as a premise to your reasoning, so you have to have already decided that it is true that there are homosexual people even before you get to any conclusion as to gender.

Similarly, like most people, you think that the existence of homosexual people implies the existence of sexual differences. That this implication is true is also a fact. In your reasoning, you start by assuming this fact so it doesn't result from your reasoning.

The usefulness of your reasoning is in determining that genders necessarily exist. This is based on two premises: first that homosexuality requires sexual differences, i.e. genders, and second that there are homosexual people. The logic lies in seeing intuitively that the conclusion that genders exist is necessarily true once you assume the two premises.



Perhaps something that you might not understand is that you would still reason perfectly logically is you believed instead that for example there are not really homosexual people and your reasoning was that therefore it may be the case that there are no genders.

Or you could believe, like I do, that homosexuality does not imply in itself the existence of different sexes. In this case, the fact that there are homosexual people would not allow you to conclude that genders necessarily exist. It would be illogical to draw such a conclusion from the premises that there are homosexual people and that homosexuality does not imply the existence of different sexes.

This distinction shows why it's useful to make the distinction between logic on the one hand, and whatever you happen to believe are the facts that you can use as premises in your reasoning.
EB

But then again, this only shows that logic can lead to independent thoughts and conclusions.

Somehow this reminds me of that South park Episode where Cartman traveled to the future.

Which is an important distinction from religion and the concept of absolute morality.