What is LOGIC? Logic does NOT Provide PROOFS and TRUTHS!

Here's an example of a logically sound and valid argument! You may not like its conclusion, but you CANNOT refute it using logic.
Here's an example of a logically sound and valid argument! You may not like its conclusion, but you CANNOT refute it using logic.

INTRODUCTION

We hear this assertion all the time:

“Hey dude, logic is everything! All of existence depends on logic. Without logic, you wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t be able to think, wouldn’t be able to talk intelligibly, wouldn’t be able to blah blah.....”

When we ask the proponent why it is so, his response is always: “Nobody knows, but it just is man, it just is....trust me, ok?”

Sorry dude, but these outrageous claims will need a rational explanation. Perhaps some choose to have faith on what their Priest (i.e. authority) tells them, but those who can think for themselves do things a little differently.


Atheists and theists alike have attributed much mysticism, fantasy, magical powers and God-like status to the word LOGIC. They have made it eternal, transcendent, absolute, incorporeal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient....among other ridiculous claims. When people have been raised in a faith-based environment, it’s extremely difficult to divorce themselves from that pernicious ideology and its entire associated lingo. Even the so-called atheists or ex-theists who claim superior intellect over other humans, have nothing but faith-based dogma which is evident in their irrational statements. It is quite normal for people to ascribe mysticism to something which they don’t fully understand. They have been doing this for millennia....and “logic” is no exception.

This article will expose such idiocies and rationally put logic back into its proper context.




WHAT IS LOGIC?

Before we can unambiguously understand what logic is, we must first dispel some irrational notions that have been attributed to the word “logical”. The word “logical” is not a synonym for any of these terms: rationality, analytical, reason or critical thinking. Although these concepts may be applied to the analysis of a logical argument, they are distinct and mutually-exclusive from logic in and of itself. Most people think that these and possibly other unrelated concepts are synonymous with logic. Clearly, they are not.

Logic is nothing more than a pre-defined CONTEXT-BASED system of derivational inference. Humans have invented thousands of Systems of Logic, many of which are incompatible with each other. Since logic is context-based, one logical system is not applicable to all others. Hence, it is impossible for logic to be absolute! As a system of inference, logic is predicated on the context of its axioms (contextual rules) and its premises (assumptions) which set a starting point on the system’s derivational inference tree.


Axioms and derivational inference trees are explained in the article below:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/LOGIC-The-Law-of-IDENTITY-Axiom-AA-is-NOT-True


The “process” of logic is applied to the logical arguments we wish to formulate. Our logical arguments must provide a set of premises (assumptions) which will be used as the “knowledge base or domain”, so to speak, from which to derive (i.e. infer) logical conclusions.




TYPES OF LOGICAL INFERENCE

Generally, there are two types of logical inference we can perform:


1) DEDUCTIVE – This reasoning consists of deriving our conclusion directly from our premises without adding any new assertions to our conclusion. All conclusions must be traceable directly back to the specified premises.

2) INDUCTIVE - This reasoning consists of generalizing, extrapolating or attributing probability to principles, empirical facts, observed phenomena, etc. A popular example of this is to say: “The Sun will rise tomorrow”. It always has, so there is no reason to think it won’t.


In the rest of this article, whenever we use the word “logic”, we are tacitly referring to logic performed by deduction; the most widely used inference. Induction has limited uses, most of which revolve around Philosophical disciplines.




LOGIC DOES NOT PROVE! LOGIC ONLY INFERS!

Q: How does logic work?

A: By explicit ASSUMPTION of statements (i.e. premises) and implicit DERIVATION of conclusions. The conclusions are “inferred” from the assumptions.


This is worth repeating: Logic is a system of inference which works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit DERIVATION!


Logic necessarily requires that you explicitly posit certain assumptive statements (assertions/premises). These will form the basis of your so-called “logical” argument. After you DERIVE conclusions which stem directly from your assumptions, some will say that you have logically “proven” your argument directly from your premises.


Q: Surely, some can say whatever they want....but what did you really “prove”?

A: You have proved NOTHING! You have only INFERRED (i.e. via induction or deduction). Most people unwittingly use the term “proof” while not understanding its implications. Proof implies certainty, even though certainty is impossible to attain. Logic cannot offer any alleged certainty. Infer implies derivation. Logic can only derive an ASSUMED conclusion from its premises. “Proof” and “infer” are two different concepts. Never the twain shall meet!


Case in point: Here is an example of a logically consistent, sound and logically valid deductive argument....


Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.


This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises! If you are one of those believers who think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth. You may not like the conclusion of this logical argument, but your subjectivities have nothing to do with logic. Logic is pre-defined to work in this context – you cannot fight it. In fact, you would have to deny logic and go outside its scope in order to attempt to refute this logical argument. Even if you try to use the so-called Logical Fallacies against this argument, you will be pissing outside the bucket. Why? Because the so-called Logical Fallacies have nothing to do with the scope of a Logical System! Remember: only axioms + premises + inferred conclusions form the scope of a logical argument – nothing else. The only way to refute the above argument is to deny logic and use a rational argument which is predicated on reality (i.e. existence) rather than tautologies.

But the Master Logician will laugh and disagree.....and the comments section is right below this article if he thinks he can justify his disagreement with an argument.




LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS CAN ONLY BE “FORMALLY VALID” – NEVER “TRUE”

Remember: Logic is a system of inference which works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit DERIVATION.


The central notion of logic is the notion of logical consequence which enables us to justify our conclusion. Logical inference is the technique which implements the concept of logical consequence and enables us to derive our conclusion.

Logic can never be relied upon to give you validity in terms of a “proven truth” or “absolute certainty”. Those who don’t understand logical systems, their limitations and how they are used will often parrot that “logic is the only way to certainty”. This is a totally absurd notion which was put to rest by Godel in the last century. People need to educate themselves in these matters before they embarrass themselves attempting to “prove” all sorts of nonsense in YouTube videos.

Since it is predicated on logical consequence, logic is only concerned with FORMAL VALIDITY; also known as "logical validity".


Q: What is formal validity?

A: A logical inference is “formally valid” (logically valid) when its conclusion logically follows (i.e. is derived directly) from the premises.


This is the only “guarantee” which you can ever hope to obtain from your logical argument, whether you like it or not. Contrary to popular belief, logic is not magic! Truth, proof and absolute certainty can only be obtained from the arrogance of Religion. The thinkers among us are able to distinguish reality from fantasy.




LOGIC IS DIVORCED FROM REALITY!

Clearly, logic cannot be used as a tool of inference to “prove” anything about reality. Logic is inherently limited by its assumptions (axioms and premises). All logical conclusions are implicitly derived (inferred) from the assumptions. In fact, you cannot go outside the assumptions to derive conclusions because your argument would no longer be “logical”. Any conclusion you draw from a logical argument is purely conceptual (derivation-based) and not empirical (sensory-based). It is the assumptions and the assumption alone, which necessitate the conclusion in your logical argument - not your sensory system. Your sensory system is outside the scope of logic because it is empirical and has its own sensory bandwidth limitations.

Your sensory system is used to validate truth propositions....whereas logic is used to DERIVE conclusions directly from the assumptions. This is the distinction which most people don’t understand. Your sensory system is used to allegedly “prove”, whereas your logical argument can only possibly “infer”.

Since logic cannot provide truths and proofs, any conclusion you draw from a logical argument can only be said to be LOGICALLY VALID in accordance with the assumptions. Obviously, such a conclusion is not a truth, much less a proof! Those who decree that their logical arguments are “proof” or “truth”, or that they have anything to do with reality....are ignorant as to what logic is and what it’s used for. These folks really need to educate themselves and understand the issues before they perpetuate their ignorance to others. Any conclusion you draw from your logical argument is only "logically valid" insofar of the assumptions (axioms and premises). That is, your conclusion can only be believed to be valid, as opposed to "logically valid", in accordance with the initial assumptions. Your logical argument and your conclusion cannot be objectively validated to apply to reality. It’s only a mere description of what you chose to describe within the limits of your premises. How can one objectively validate any premise or inferred conclusion to prove with certainty that it applies to reality? Anyone?




LOGIC FAILS TO INFER TRUTHS ABOUT REALITY

If you are not yet convinced that logic is divorced from reality, here is a simple test to see if Logic can provide us with a “true” conclusion about reality:

Those who consider themselves versed in logic should have NO problem answering the following question and providing a logical argument (premises + conclusion) which justifies their answer as “truth”. There are tons of empirical observations from Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, M-Theory and other disciplines which have PROVEN the TRUE mechanism of gravity. I mean, empiricism is the “bread & butter” of the Logician who uses these observed “truths” as PREMISES into his logical arguments, right? So the proponent of Logic shouldn’t have any excuse to not be able to logically infer the “true” conclusion, right? Feel free to use whatever logical formulas, theorems or symbols you wish. Please post your answer in the comments section below, or post a link to it online.


Q: When you let go of a ball, what is the TRUE LOGICAL reason of why it falls to the floor?

a) Because it slides down warped space?

b) Because gravitons impart negative momentum on it and make it fall down?

c) Because gravity waves ripple spacetime and make it fall down?

d) Because a force pulls it down?

e) Because gravity pulls it down?

f) Because a plasma vortex pulls it down?

g) Because the Earth expands and touches the bottom of the ball?

h) Because space has a dimension which makes it fall down?

i) Because energy makes it fall down?

j) Because (insert your own reason...any reason)?


All the Logician has to do is tell the members of the audience which one of these options his logical inference concluded. I mean, Logic does indeed have the power to utilize the true empirical observations we have about reality and draw a conclusion, right? If not, then Logic has nothing to do with reality. You can’t have it both ways like they do in Religion!


After this simple exercise the proponent of Logic will inevitably realize that:

1) Logic is purely conceptual, pre-defined, rule-based, derivational, assumptive, descriptive, non-explanatory and observer-dependent. This summarily renders logic to be subjective, whether we like it or not. Logic is subject to its assumed context! Logic was never intended to be applied outside the limits of its inferred derivations. As such, logic cannot be used to draw conclusions about reality because logic is divorced from reality.

2) Reality is observer-independent; has no rules, no assumptions and no derivations; i.e. reality is objective! Reality can only be rationally explained by humans; never logically asserted as truth or belief.

3) The purpose of logic is to solve DERIVATIONAL-TYPE problems....not to confuse, misdirect and persuade.

4) Questions concerning reality are not derivational-type problems!




CONCLUSION

Logic has its system-imposed limits, whereas human intelligence and critical thought has no limits, whether systemic or physical.

Logic is an anthropocentric system of inference restricted to systems comprised of pre-defined rules (axioms) and initial assumptions (premises).

There is NO provision for TRUTH or PROOF in any System of Logic. The axioms and assumptions prohibit it. All logical conclusions are derivationally inferred from one’s assumptions. It is impossible to prove conclusions from assumptive premises.

Logic is not magic, and it certainly isn’t Physics. Logic has nothing to do with existence. Reality is NOT logical....it just is! Reality couldn't care less about humans, their anthropocentric Systems of Logic and the subjective conclusions they infer as alleged “truths”. Reality can only be rationally explained.


We continue our analysis of logic in our next article on the LIMITATIONS of logic:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/LOGIC-Its-Laws-Premises-and-LIMITATIONS

More by this Author


Comments 54 comments

ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"Reality is observer-independent; has no rules, no assumptions and no derivations; i.e. reality is objective!"

Great new article. Glad you put that bit in at the end there about 'objective'. I think a lot of atheists and philosophy newbies get tangled in the difference between logic and its relevance to subjectivity/objectivity.

Salut!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks SOL.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Spirits exist because god created them.

Energy does not exist because is a concept, Atheist are stupid.

I am smarter than atheist by using simple logic.


MCT 4 years ago

This is very misleading. And untrue. The author completely ignores the need to objectively define terms for logic to work. Nice try though.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

MCT,

"The author completely ignores the need to objectively define terms for logic to work."

Which terms are you referring to? Can you please explain your case?

I already defined: axiom, logic, tautology, truth, proof. Did I miss any other key term?

And please tell me what is misleading. I would like you to help me correct any mistakes you think this article has.

I hope you come back, MCT.

Thanks.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"This is very misleading. And untrue."

Hahaha, hilarious!

Didn't take long for the clowns to arrive claiming/asserting emotional nonsense without any explanation at all.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Oh, don't be so pessimistic, SOL.

I am willing to bet a case of beer that MCT has a valid argument against this article. I mean, why else would he come here to post such comments?

And I know he will come back to justify his statements.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I suppose it takes a while to find the relevant explanatory passages in the dusty pages of all those scriptures.

On reflection, I shall give our Good Brothers more of a chance to make their case.

Ten Bloody Marys and Six Holy Tequilas for my sins.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Logic is nothing more than a pre-defined CONTEXT-BASED system of derivational inference. "

That's beautiful...it feels smooth as butter on my tongue!

I especially liked the first time I heard this. I borrowed your "human cells are invisible to the eye" ppc several months ago, and totally shut down a Kalam Cosmo debate. Logicians didn't have a clue what happened to them!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

Oh damn, monkey, you are killing me.

And don't forget this one:

"The purpose of logic is to solve DERIVATIONAL-TYPE problems"

Logic is an incredible tool of tautological systems like, computers, business rules in finance, digital circuits, etc. These logic systems have a very narrow and limited domain from which to derive intermediate steps of analysis and decision-making.

The universe....reality....will have none of that!

Ever since Atheists & Theists took over Logic, they have managed to prove that your aunt is actually your uncle when you sow a sack of balls on her. We need to put logic back into its proper context.


Bob Zermop profile image

Bob Zermop 4 years ago from California, USA

Hey, fatfist. First and foremost, I want to say that you've got a lot of interesting articles on here, and I will be spending a good deal of time going through them. I'll likely leave comments, but it's a little busy over here, so please forgive me if there are long pauses between my comments. I will be back eventually :D

That said, I will take a stab at this hub. I think your claim that logic is divorced from reality is certainly ver interesting, but it didn't mesh with my understanding of the world. To be frank, I'm predisposed to assume I'm right (in other words, arrogant) so I spent a while to ponder your statement. Eventually I came to the conclusion that you're right - but so is my thought that you're wrong.

When you said logic is divorced from reality, I assume now that you mean the logic PROCESS (sorry for caps, no italics). This of course is easily divorced from reality. All you would need to do is plug untrue assumptions into the process and you'd get a random conclusion - no reality needed.

However, this doesn't mean that reality is not logical. As a believer in logic, I believe that the reason logic fails is because of incorrect assumptions, something that I think most would agree with. This means just because we don't know the reason why something happens doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason for happening. If we had all of our facts down right, we could get to the right conclusion without a problem.

Whether we can necessarily get all of the facts correct is a different matter. This brings me to your other point - how and if we can arrive at absolute truths. I believe we can't,but not because logic fails.

We can't because we are limited by our senses (you know, the old Descartes grinding all the way down to "I think therefore I am") and therefore can never REALLY know whether we have our facts down, and consequently can't have our conclusions always be correct either. So our conclusion is the same, but from my understanding, we come from very different places.

So I have to agree with our semi-anonymous commentator MCT: your hub is a little misleading, because its conclusions are completely correct, but for different reasons.

Thanks for allowing me this space,and I look forward to seeing you around more. Because this was my first time posting on your hubs, I was a little more wordy than usual; I'll be more concise in any following comments, so please excuse my brevity.

Did I understand your claims correctly? Please feel free to point out any fallacies in my response.

Also (yep, just a little more), thanks to monkey minds for introducing me to here: I saw the Kalam Cosmo debate.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bob,

“To be frank, I'm predisposed to assume I'm right (in other words, arrogant)”

Arrogance is a good quality to have if it can make one rationally justify their case. Arrogance and bellyaching just for the sake of it doesn’t achieve anything, right?

“However, this doesn't mean that reality is not logical”

Logical is what WE as humans invent and assert. We invented this inferential methodology we call Logic because it helps us solve pattern-related tautological problems. And it does an awesome job of it. But we cannot blindly superimpose Logic onto reality and religiously decree, for example, that gravity behaves that way because Logic concludes that space is warped. Reality is not logical.....reality just IS. And the best that any human can do is to rationally explain its natural phenomena. Proofs and truths are divorced from reality because they inject the subjectivity of the limited human sensory system. Whereas our reasoning ability and rationality have no limits.

“I believe that the reason logic fails is because of incorrect assumptions”

Obviously, because again, our premises (assumptions) stem directly from our limited sensory system (i.e. observations). There is no way around this if we foolishly limit ourselves by forcing logic upon reality.

“how and if we can arrive at absolute truths. I believe we can't,but not because logic fails.”

Truth, whether ‘absolute’ or plain-jane vanilla ‘truth’, has nothing to do with logic. We are talking about 2 separate concepts. Truth is a concept which we define and give meaning to. Truth only applies to propositions which we validate as true/false using our sensory system. If we desire further analysis we can plug these propositions as premises into a system of logic to infer other related conclusions. I have an article explaining why absolute truth is an impossibility:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...

“your hub is a little misleading, because its conclusions are completely correct, but for different reasons.”

If it is, then I would appreciate the feedback so I can eliminate any ambiguities. But the point of this article is that reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained. How, you ask? By the Scientific Method. In our Hypothesis we critically reason what entity can possibly mediate the phenomenon of gravity. Then our Theory uses the mediator of our hypothesis to rationally explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. If our Theory is rational, then reality MAY work this way; i.e. it is POSSIBLE....not guaranteed certain. If our Theory is irrational, then it is impossible for reality to work this way and we must reformulate our hypo/theory model and try again.

Those who push logical truths and proofs into reality haven’t a clue of what they are talking about. They are only pushing their Religion.

Glad to see the monkey recommended my hubs for you. Thanks for stopping by, Bob.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist I have a question why does big bang religion and genesis assume that space and matter did not exist until god or the bang made it happened?

I wonder if the Tiara Of Rome made up the two religions to control science and religion at the same time?

If this is the cased then the Dialectic is in full power all around the world. But why would they do such a thing and what could be the outcome?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

What is logic? I like how you strip the human from mankind, while you can't separate the levels of consciousness of actuality. Wouldn't it be so nice if reality was so simple, that you could explain everything as merely being objects and concepts and nothing more.... In the event you can't reply, let me give you something to reply against, as the magnetic vibrations that you can't see is what YOU and your FOLLOWERS can't recognize! Chirp, chirp...


El Dude 3 years ago

Insane Mundane, what else can there possibly be besides object or concept?! Something has a shape or it doesn't. There's no magical, spooky in-between.

Tell us all what this mind-blowing non-object and non-concept is...


El Dude 3 years ago

Or, to reformulate, what else can there possibly be besides either a thing itself (object), or how we relate (conceptualize) between said things?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

El Dude, you ask about mind-blowing things while not using your own... The fact that you want me to explain, says a lot, on your part... LOL!


Emil Berlendy 3 years ago

logic is a big part of the truth,among other things like people that talk to much babbling and people the don't jut briefly speak facts.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Emil,

“logic is a big part of the truth”

Truth: a concept of validation for propositional statements.

Emil, where do you see provision for LOGIC in the definition of truth?

Truth is an abstract concept that necessarily embodies 2 concepts:

1) A proposition, and

2) It’s validation or proof.

It takes a human observer to empirically prove a proposition by using his sensory system to compare objects referenced in the proposition (i.e. referents). Truth doesn't embody Systems of Logic.

Truth is necessarily EMPIRICAL, whereas logic stems from Formal Systems of Logic which are necessarily CONCEPTUAL.

Logic has to do with the tautological derivation of statements from rules/axioms and assumptions (i.e. premises). Rules and Assumptions are not amenable to ‘truth’ or ‘proof’…..they are only amenable to ‘derivation’ and ‘formal validity’. The laymen of logic never learned this important lesson in school, and thus spends his life trolling the internet and making outrageous claims and ascribing God-like powers to logic & truth.

Obviously, logic is necessarily divorced from truth. Never the twain shall meet.

“people that talk to much babbling and people the don't jut briefly speak facts”

There’s a time for babbling, having fun and pulling each other’s jock straps or bras……and there’s a time for getting serious and talking rationally. Guess what time it is now?


Pompous 3 years ago

1= a number

2= a number

1=2

This is NOT valid or sound.

First off, you are saying 1 is identical to 2 because they are both numbers while ignoring the properties. That is both a equivocal and Modo hoc fallacy. I thought you said I couldn't refute it using logic?

A number cannot be identical to 1 because a number is an indefinite quantity and 1 is a definite quantity, so the premise is internally contradictory and the conclusion does not follow. I used logic to refute your argument.

"Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye."

Not valid. Your premises do not reflect back on themselves. Made up of cells is not identical to the human body. The human body is a whole, cells are a part, the heart is not the human body but it is apart of it and made up of cells, made up of cells is only a quality. Your premise is internally contradictory.

Also cells ARE (possess the quality of being) invisible to the naked eye, but cells are not "made up of cells" like the human body, nor are they identical to "invisible to the naked eye". So the conclusion that the human body is invisible to the naked eye fails. Single cells may be invisible to the naked eye, but made of cells are not identical to cells themselves. The premises do not follow the conclusion. I used logic alone to refute your logically invalid argument.

Simply stated, it is the fallacy of composition. This is as invalid and unsound as your original "argument".

"Q: When you let go of a ball, what is the TRUE LOGICAL reason of why it falls to the floor?

a) Because it slides down warped space?

b) Because gravitons impart negative momentum on it and make it fall down?

c) Because gravity waves ripple spacetime and make it fall down?

d) Because a force pulls it down?

e) Because gravity pulls it down?

f) Because a plasma vortex pulls it down?

g) Because the Earth expands and touches the bottom of the ball?

h) Because space has a dimension which makes it fall down?

i) Because energy makes it fall down?

j) Because (insert your own reason...any reason)?"

You are assuming sense-data is truth and the ultimately reality. Sense-data is only appearances.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“First off, you are saying 1 is identical to 2 because they are both numbers while ignoring the properties.”

Aha, welcome to the world of Formal Systems of Logic. In your first day of class you will learn that all formalities (i.e. properties) of these Formal Systems are enforced by the axiomatic rules.

“1=2….That is both a equivocal and Modo hoc fallacy. I thought you said I couldn't refute it using logic?”

We’re talking apples and oranges aren’t we? You didn’t ask me what my axioms were. You made a huge out-of-context assumption that arithmetic axioms were implied here and marched forward in a different tangent, didn’t you? All novices of Formal Systems of Logic make the same error…..they all fall into this same trap I set for them.

Let’s try again, so you can understand.

1=number

2=number

Thus, 1=2

Similarly, A=5, B=5, Thus, A=B

Now, you can’t complain to me and say that the letter A is not the same as the letter B. It’s all about the context (i.e. axiomatic rules) of the tautological system in question, my friend.

.

“Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye."

“Not valid. ... Made up of cells is not identical to the human body. “

We are talking about a composition here. If an object is comprised solely by invisible (to the human eye) objects, then it goes without saying that the object itself is invisible to the human eye. Air atoms are invisible, and so is the air in front of you. Reasoning 101.

.

“Your premise is internally contradictory.”

You should take an intro course in Logic to learn what a contradiction is. A contradiction is of the form P and not-P, where P is a proposition. You haven’t shown any contradiction because none is there.

.

“Also cells ARE (possess the quality of being) invisible to the naked eye, but cells are not "made up of cells" like the human body, nor are they identical to "invisible to the naked eye". So the conclusion that the human body is invisible to the naked eye fails.”

Gibberish! Please collect your thoughts rationally and communicate your ideas coherently.

.

“Simply stated, it is the fallacy of composition.”

Whoa!! Hold it right there!!!

What does the Fallacy of Composition have to do with Logic? Where is there provision for FALLACIES in the axioms of Logic, be it Classical, Quantum, Intuitionist, Fuzzy, etc.?

Do you even know? Here, let’s test your claim…..

.

P1: Air is comprised of atoms.

P2: Atoms are invisible to the human eye.

C: Therefore, air is invisible to the human eye!

So this is a FALLACY COMPOSITION according to you? You can actually SEE air, huh? Air suddenly becomes visible because you decided to assert some fallacy of composition which is out-of-context with the Formal System in question?

You need to learn what ‘fallacies’ are how they are applied, my friend. The list of fallacies you google online is divorced from any system of logic. Never the twain shall meet. We learn this on the first day of our Logic 101 course.

.

“You are assuming sense-data is truth”

All truths, without question, are concepts of validation stemming from the empirical proof of a propositional statement. Philosophy 101.

Truth: a concept of validation for propositional statements.

Truth is an abstract concept that necessarily embodies 2 concepts:

1) A proposition, and

2) Its validation or proof.

It takes a human observer to empirically prove (i.e. validate) a proposition by using his sensory system to compare objects referenced in the proposition (i.e. referents).


Pompous 3 years ago

You certainly are compelling Fatfist, but I'm just not convinced. But I change my mind and am probably wrong because I have been before.

Here is my best reply to what you said.

"Aha, welcome to the world of Formal Systems of Logic. In your first day of class you will learn that all formalities (i.e. properties) of these Formal Systems are enforced by the axiomatic rules."

Self-evident.

"We’re talking apples and oranges aren’t we? You didn’t ask me what my axioms were. You made a huge out-of-context assumption that arithmetic axioms were implied here and marched forward in a different tangent, didn’t you? All novices of Formal Systems of Logic make the same error…..they all fall into this same trap I set for them."

Okay, maybe you define 1 and 2 as no more than a symbol for number.

But what about formal systems of logic? We aren't talking apples and oranges, because they are both just fruits is what it seems.

"Let’s try again, so you can understand.

1=number

2=number

Thus, 1=2

Similarly, A=5, B=5, Thus, A=B"

"Now, you can’t complain to me and say that the letter A is not the same as the letter B. It’s all about the context (i.e. axiomatic rules) of the tautological system in question, my friend."

Yes, you got. But, how can you go outside of logic to refute your own argument now? I am interested, what system do you use that is outside of logic. (is this system mutually exclusive to logic so is it illogic? And if not, what is it if it is neither?) You defined the variables where they do not have their common arithmetic definition.

"We are talking about a composition here. If an object is comprised solely by invisible (to the human eye) objects, then it goes without saying that the object itself is invisible to the human eye. Air atoms are invisible, and so is the air in front of you. Reasoning 101."

If that is you're reasoning, than you reason that everything is invisible to your eyes. So, are you blind? Or is it your reasoning? I just can't not see how that is valid or sound.

"You should take an intro course in Logic to learn what a contradiction is. A contradiction is of the form P and not-P, where P is a proposition. You haven’t shown any contradiction because none is there."

There is a contradiction in the premise because cells(P) are not clump off cells(not-P) and so concluding not-P has the same qualities as P because not-P is made of P is invalid. The premises do not follow the conclusion. You not once added on that bit there.

Really, when I think about it, there are so many things wrong with the argument. A clump of cells is not cells alone. In your argument, you suggest that the qualities are carried on when the cells are clumped but they are by nature different things even if they are made of the same stuff.

"Gibberish! Please collect your thoughts rationally and communicate your ideas coherently."

Sorry.

"Whoa!! Hold it right there!!!

What does the Fallacy of Composition have to do with Logic? Where is there provision for FALLACIES in the axioms of Logic, be it Classical, Quantum, Intuitionist, Fuzzy, etc.? Do you even know? "

A fallacy is flawed reasoning that makes an argument invalid.

There are informal and formal fallacies, and both are using flawed reasoning.

I cannot see how it is unrelated to logic. Well hey- I mean, in a way you are right. Fallacies are not axiomatic they are faulty so they cannot be self-evidently true. Fallacies are illogical.

"Here, let’s test your claim…..

P1: Air is comprised of atoms.

P2: Atoms are invisible to the human eye.

C: Therefore, air is invisible to the human eye!"

The conclusion maybe empirically fact that you can't see air, but the argument itself is not valid.

1. When I ate spaghetti I feel full

2. Spaghetti is food.

C: Therefore, without spaghetti I'll be hungry

I mean the first two premises maybe fact, but the argument doesn't connect, it is invalid.

"So this is a FALLACY COMPOSITION according to you? You can actually SEE air, huh? Air suddenly becomes visible because you decided to assert some fallacy of composition which is out-of-context with the Formal System in question?"

You can refute an argument even if the conclusion is factual. It is all assumptive when you blindly conclude one must deny the facts if they think an argument with a factual conclusion or premise is invalid.

"You need to learn what ‘fallacies’ are how they are applied, my friend. The list of fallacies you Google online is divorced from any system of logic. Never the twain shall meet. We learn this on the first day of our Logic 101 course."

A fallacy is flawed reasoning that makes an argument invalid.

Logic is reasoning in relation to validity.

The two relate since they are both involved in reasoning. For the world of me, I cannot begin to reason that reasoning is possible without logic.

Logic is simple, and many falsehoods shroud it, so what did you learn in 'logic 101' and what makes you sure it reflects what is correct?

But you tell me "I need to learn what a fallacy is", but do you even know? What's true for me may not be true for you, but maybe you can at least make it that way if you value your own judgement instead of the old "you need to learn".

From what I can see, you seem to think you can reason somehow outside of logic. You arguing that logic is limited using logic itself. You said intelligence and critical thought (which rely on logic) are limitless, ascribing the same fanaticism to them as you say logic has... all while using the system and laws of logic in your arguments... I see this as just favoring a different mysticism you call 'critical-thought' and 'intelligence'.

"All truths, without question, are concepts of validation stemming from the empirical proof of a propositional statement. Philosophy 101."

Not all "truths"(truth is opinion right?) rely on sense-data, you can make up some symbol such as 1 and 2 for quantities, and then without having 2 items in front of you conclude 1+1=2. No sense-data required. scientific evidence is not truth, it is what appears. You do not need philosophy, reasoning, logic, or any other intellectual nonsense to scientifically find two rocks in your backyard through sense-data.

"Truth: a concept of validation for propositional statements.

Truth is an abstract concept that necessarily embodies 2 concepts:

1) A proposition, and

2) Its validation or proof."

Okay.

"It takes a human observer to empirically prove (i.e. validate) a proposition by using his sensory system to compare objects referenced in the proposition (i.e. referents)."

One can compare abstract ideas independent of objects and validate things through thought alone, no sense-data required. One can validate whether something is self-contradictory without the aid of sense-data. If you rely only on sense-data you are a materialist (or youtube-atheist).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“ I'm just not convinced”

If you want to be convinced, go visit your Priest in the confession box….he’ll convince you in an instant. Reality doesn’t give a rat’s behind about your opinions, emotions or what you wish to be convinced of. In reality, we offer rational explanations without contradictions. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, you gotta use your God-given brain to critically think and rationally explain to justify your statements. Assertions, claims, unjustifiable statements and gibberish are just OPINIONS which are a dime a billion…right?

.

“Similarly, A=5, B=5, Thus, A=B…..But, how can you go outside of logic to refute your own argument now?"

We are talking TAUTOLOGIES here! What’s there to refute? All tautologies are pre-defined irrespective of whether you like it or not. If you wish to use that system of tautology to solve a problem, then you have no choice but to follow its axiomatic rules. For example, anyone can invent a system of logic where 783 = 5, 87+6=K, etc. etc. You can’t come along and claim it’s wrong. Tautologies are NEVER wrong or right, false or true, incorrect or correct. There are what they are DEFINED to be….whether you like it or not.

.

“what system do you use that is outside of logic”

Outside the conceptual realm of pre-defined tautologies and the axiomatic rules that govern them, we are talking about reality/existence. Reality is not governed or ruled by any rule-based system. As humans, we can only critically reason and rationally explain reality….like WHY does a ball fall to the floor…what pulls it down? Human-invented logical rules will not give you a chance in Heaven to answer such a question.

.

“If that is you're reasoning, than you reason that everything is invisible to your eyes.”

That is a logically valid syllogism in the realm of a TAUTOLOGY. Do you understand the difference between a TAUTOLOGICAL SYSTEM and REALITY?

Real/exist: an object having location.

The Moon is real, it exists, because it’s an object with location. You already know the Scientific definition of object (that which has shape). The Moon is located in the universe. Hence it’s real. The statements in a logical syllogism are purely tautological and derivational and have ZERO relevance to reality. It is impossible for you to refute that syllogism using logic. You need to analyze those statements in the realm of Physics (outside of logic) if you wish to make any refuting conclusion. You cannot do that using logic.

.

“There is a contradiction in the premise because cells(P) are not clump off cells(not-P)”

Cells is plural….MORE THAN ONE. Call it a clump, a conglomerate, a bunch…whatever. We are talking more than one. Grammar 101. No contradiction there. You are just making excuses because you cannot use logic to contradict that syllogism…..just as I told you!

.

“you suggest that the qualities are carried on when the cells are clumped”

Where in the syllogism does it say that? Do you understand a logical argument? You cannot adlib and insert your own statements. You must take it at its logical context….literally! What you are attempting to do is go OUTSIDE of logic to evaluate that cell syllogism, make decisions/conclusions…..and then come back and insert your results INTO the logical argument. You can’t do that…..NO WAY!! Learn what Systems of Logic are about and use them in their intended context so you don’t chase your tail in circles.

.

“A fallacy is flawed reasoning that makes an argument invalid.”

Not a logical argument!! That cell logic syllogism is VALID. If you wish to show a fallacy, then you must go outside of logic to do so. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FALLACIES IN ANY SYSTEM OF LOGIC.

.

“The conclusion maybe empirically fact that you can't see air, but the argument itself is not valid.”

You put your foot in your mouth. The fact you cannot see air means in a realistic sense, the argument is indeed VALID. Please read what you type.

“Therefore, without spaghetti I'll be hungry”

Invalid argument! You cannot use negation when there are no negated statements in your premises. To negate an object is not anything at all, and no coherent statement can be derived from that. This analogy has nothing to do with my cell or air argument, both of which are LOGICALLY VALID, but only one is valid in REALITY. So this is a fine example showing that logic has nothing to do with reality! Understand?

.

“You can refute an argument even if the conclusion is factual.”

Not for a TAUTOLOGICAL argument. Only for an argument not predicated on systems of logic. Again…Learn the difference!

.

“What's true for me may not be true for you”

Exactly! Truth is an opinion. Now you’re learning.

.

“you seem to think you can reason somehow outside of logic”

Critical thinking using the bounty of reality (i.e. objects) has ZERO to do with logic. Logic is creates an artificial scenario of human-invented rules and straight tautological derivation without critical analysis or thinking involved in the premises or conclusion. Any computer can derive valid conclusions from premises and axioms….no thinking is required…..it’s straight derivation. Logical systems have no bearing on reality. Reality cannot be derived. Reality can only be CRITICALLY REASONED and RATIONALLY EXPLAINED. Learn the basics.

.

“You said intelligence and critical thought (which rely on logic) are limitless”

What do you mean by INTELLIGENCE?

Intelligence:___________

Fill in the blanks. When you understand what this word means, you will see that intelligence has nothing to do with Systems of Logic. Here, check it out….

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENCE...

.

“I see this as just favoring a different mysticism you call 'critical-thought' and 'intelligence'”

Yes, since you cannot even hope to define these terms…..it is YOU who is ascribing mysticism and God-like properties to them…..indeed, just as this article explains. You are doing Religion instead of Science. That’s why you are chasing your tail.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“(truth is opinion right?) rely on sense-data”

Bingo!

.

“you can make up some symbol such as 1 and 2 for quantities, and then without having 2 items in front of you conclude 1+1=2. No sense-data required.”

Yes, because that’s is a PRE-DEFINED TAUTOLOGY. It’s defined to be the case. What is defined has nothing to do with truth. If it did, then we can define God in a tautological argument and ascribe truths to Him and all He does. Tautologies have nothing to do with the concept of TRUTH. Understand?

C’mon….please learn the basics here.

.

“scientific evidence is not truth, it is what appears.”

Yes, it is just an observation which we take as an assumption at face value. Then we use the Hypothesis & Theory of the Sci Method to rationally explain the phenomenon/effects.

There is no truth or proof in Science. Only rational explanations we call Theories. To Theorize means to explain.

.

“One can compare abstract ideas independent of objects”

Nonsense! All ideas (i.e. concepts) are predicated on a MINIMUM of 2 objects!

“ One can validate whether something is self-contradictory without the aid of sense-data.”

Yes, this is called critical thinking. It has nothing to do with systems of logic or empiricism. It is purely conceptual.

.

“If you rely only on sense-data you are a materialist (or youtube-atheist).”

Nah….youtube atheists are Religionists. They lack belief in God until they have evidence for the Almighty. Then they will believe in Him. An atheist is a theist-in-waiting. That’s why atheists believe in the possibility of a God, a Deistic one.

A human with a brain can critically reason why God is impossible. Only morons are atheists.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...


Pompiss 3 years ago

"We are talking TAUTOLOGIES here! What’s there to refute? All tautologies are pre-defined irrespective of whether you like it or not. If you wish to use that system of tautology to solve a problem, then you have no choice but to follow its axiomatic rules. For example, anyone can invent a system of logic where 783 = 5, 87+6=K, etc. etc. You can’t come along and claim it’s wrong. Tautologies are NEVER wrong or right, false or true, incorrect or correct. There are what they are DEFINED to be….whether you like it or not."

But you said you must go out of logic to refute it.

"Outside the conceptual realm of pre-defined tautologies and the axiomatic rules that govern them, we are talking about reality/existence. Reality is not governed or ruled by any rule-based system. As humans, we can only critically reason and rationally explain reality….like WHY does a ball fall to the floor…what pulls it down? Human-invented logical rules will not give you a chance in Heaven to answer such a question."

Pushing logic aside.

A mind must follow a rule regardless or it doesn't have any basis for it's answers for any question concerning reality.

Why? A rule says what is possible or impossible. It is impossible that the ball falls to the floor because it is being pushed away from the floor.

All things rational rely on a rule.

"That is a logically valid syllogism in the realm of a TAUTOLOGY. Do you understand the difference between a TAUTOLOGICAL SYSTEM and REALITY?"

Now, I only have known of a tautology as something necessarily true under all interpretations. Tautologies conform to reality, not the other way around.

"Real/exist: an object having location."

And then something can be, without existing. Air is no object, but it has location. Air has no shape, and like, atoms have no true shape.

Existence is finite.

"The Moon is real, it exists, because it’s an object with location. You already know the Scientific definition of object (that which has shape). The Moon is located in the universe. Hence it’s real. The statements in a logical syllogism are purely tautological and derivational and have ZERO relevance to reality. It is impossible for you to refute that syllogism using logic. You need to analyze those statements in the realm of Physics (outside of logic) if you wish to make any refuting conclusion. You cannot do that using logic."

I mean, you just used logic to conclude the moon exist.

You said:

1. Existence is an object with location

2. The moon is an object with location

C: Therefore the moon exist.

Physics as I know it is concerned with matter and energy. I do not know what it means for you.

"Cells is plural….MORE THAN ONE. Call it a clump, a conglomerate, a bunch…whatever. We are talking more than one. Grammar 101. No contradiction there. You are just making excuses because you cannot use logic to contradict that syllogism…..just as I told you!"

No, because when you say cells you are referring to cells in general. Like in this sentence: Cells alone are not a clump of cells.

And you can't just use any old declaration as an axiom. There must be reason for accepting axioms as true, rather than assuming simply because. Syllogisms are syllogisms regardless if it is logically valid/sound or not. A syllogism can be contradict through logic.

Logic has to conform to reality.

"Where in the syllogism does it say that? Do you understand a logical argument? You cannot adlib and insert your own statements. You must take it at its logical context….literally! What you are attempting to do is go OUTSIDE of logic to evaluate that cell syllogism, make decisions/conclusions…..and then come back and insert your results INTO the logical argument. You can’t do that…..NO WAY!! Learn what Systems of Logic are about and use them in their intended context so you don’t chase your tail in circles."

There is no way you can make that argument without suggesting qualities are extended, and if you aren't the argument still fails right there and becomes totally non-sequitur anyway. There is no way to make that argument valid unless you change the meaning of more variables.

"Not a logical argument!! That cell logic syllogism is VALID. If you wish to show a fallacy, then you must go outside of logic to do so. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FALLACIES IN ANY SYSTEM OF LOGIC."

You are actually right, about fallacies, but the cell logic is not valid.

"You put your foot in your mouth. The fact you cannot see air means in a realistic sense, the argument is indeed VALID. Please read what you type."

In a realistic sense? Isn't what you are saying is that logic is separate from reality? So there is no realistic sense. In a logical sense it is not valid, but it is sound.

"Invalid argument! You cannot use negation when there are no negated statements in your premises. To negate an object is not anything at all, and no coherent statement can be derived from that. This analogy has nothing to do with my cell or air argument, both of which are LOGICALLY VALID, but only one is valid in REALITY. So this is a fine example showing that logic has nothing to do with reality! Understand?"

My point exactly, an argument can be invalid and still be sound. The premises were true, I like spaghetti and spaghetti is food. The conclusion did not follow.

"Not for a TAUTOLOGICAL argument. Only for an argument not predicated on systems of logic. Again…Learn the difference!"

I think we have two different ideas of them.

"Exactly! Truth is an opinion. Now you’re learning."

Wait, so it is only opinion that there cannot be a square circle?

What about things that are impossible?

"Critical thinking using the bounty of reality (i.e. objects) has ZERO to do with logic. Logic is creates an artificial scenario of human-invented rules and straight tautological derivation without critical analysis or thinking involved in the premises or conclusion. Any computer can derive valid conclusions from premises and axioms….no thinking is required…..it’s straight derivation. Logical systems have no bearing on reality. Reality cannot be derived. Reality can only be CRITICALLY REASONED and RATIONALLY EXPLAINED. Learn the basics."

Okay, but I am saying reality has bearing on logical systems.

"What do you mean by INTELLIGENCE?

Intelligence:___________

Fill in the blanks. When you understand what this word means, you will see that intelligence has nothing to do with Systems of Logic. Here, check it out…."

okay, I see now.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“But you said you must go out of logic to refute it.”

Again, please try to understand. Any argument predicated on Systems of Logic is tautological. That means that only DERIVATIONS from the axioms and premises are possible. Whatever conclusion is derived is logically valid. The buck stops there!

What’s the matter….you don’t like the conclusion? Too bad, it’s logical….deal with it.

In the alternative, just ditch tautologies altogether and analyze the problem rationally, using critical thinking (non-rule based and non-tautological).

.

“A mind must follow a rule regardless or it doesn't have any basis for it's answers for any question concerning reality.”

Rules are made by Priests to be followed by their minions. Reality has nothing to do with human-invented rules. Reality just IS. It is up to us to critically reason and justify our arguments about reality without contradictions.

.

“A rule says what is possible or impossible.”

It the HUMAN who pulls this rule out of his ass! Reality can only be critically reasoned, never dogmatically asserted by rules from Priests. Stop worshipping authority and think for yourself for a change, ok? This is the best advice I can give you.

.

“All things rational rely on a rule.”

No! A rational argument is one which uses object to perform actions/verbs instead of concepts, and one which is non-contradictory. Nothing to do with rules. Just reasoning 101.

.

“I only have known of a tautology as something necessarily true under all interpretations.”

Tautologies are DEFINED to be so….they have nothing to do with truth. How can something that is defined and asserted have anything to do with truth? If it did, then we might as well define God into existence as a "truth" and settle all the God arguments, right?

.

“Air is no object, but it has location. Air has no shape, and like, atoms have no true shape.”

Air necessarily has shape and is an object because air comes in surface-to-surface contact with other objects and performs phenomena, like ripping roofs off houses or even waving that flag.

.

“you just used logic to conclude the moon exist.”

No I didn’t…you did! The Moon exists or not irrespective of our logic & rules. We define what EXIST means, and IF the Moon passes our definition with flying colors, then we can say that the Moon exists pursuant to our rational and non-contradictory definition. No logic is used at all. You need to stop limiting your thinking abilities like youtube atheists do. Logic has its purpose in tautological systems which are driven by rules….like technology, computing, business, etc. Logic has no purpose in reality and only leads to irrational conclusions, as I've previously shown with the cell syllogism.

.

“Logic has to conform to reality.”

Irrelevant what YOU claim it HAS to do in order to please you and make you sleep well at night. If you cannot justify your statement, then it’s worthless. You need to justify what human-invented rules have to do with reality. Let’s have it!

.

“There is no way to make that argument valid unless you change the meaning of more variables.”

Irrelevant! A logical argument is VALID by DERIVATION whether you like it or not! Deal with it. Suck it up! If you don’t agree with its conclusion, then use your God-given brain to formulate an argument without tautologies.

.

“You are actually right, about fallacies, but the cell logic is not valid.”

Again….it is LOGICALLY valid according to the DERIVATION from the axioms and premises. It may not be valid according to reality….BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY? You need a Physics argument to deal with that.

.

“Isn't what you are saying is that logic is separate from reality?”

You still confuse TAUTOLOGY with REALITY! My God….I don’t know what to do with you. Maybe I should buy you a beer and have a face-to-face chat…..

.

“Wait, so it is only opinion that there cannot be a square circle?”

A square and a circle are artificial objects of geometry which are invented and defined by us. Geometric objects are ideal objects defined by us. That there are no square-circles follows BY DEFINITION….not by opinion or by logic or by truth, proof or evidence. Understand?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"A rule says what is possible or impossible. It is impossible that the ball falls to the floor because it is being pushed away from the floor."

Certain "rules" of Physics say that within the framework of quantum field theory, graviton and gluon balls "pull" things together somehow even thought hey travel away from the source.

So much for "rules," so much for QM, and so much for your idea about what is possible, or not possible.


Pompous 3 years ago

"Certain "rules" of Physics say that within the framework of quantum field theory, graviton and gluon balls "pull" things together somehow even thought hey travel away from the source.

So much for "rules," so much for QM, and so much for your idea about what is possible, or not possible."

Still, they aren't "pulling" things in by "pushing" them away! It is impossible like gods and devils! A dog on a chain can run away from you as much as they want, but you can pull them in with enough force!

"Rules are made by Priests to be followed by their minions. Reality has nothing to do with human-invented rules. Reality just IS. It is up to us to critically reason and justify our arguments about reality without contradictions."

You are applying rules right there. You are applying a rule of non-contradiction in justifying arguments.

"It the HUMAN who pulls this rule out of his ass! Reality can only be critically reasoned, never dogmatically asserted by rules from Priests. Stop worshipping authority and think for yourself for a change, ok? This is the best advice I can give you."

You are making a rule right there! "Reality can only be critically reasoned, never dogmatically asserted by rules from Priests. " That is the rule you made!

"No! A rational argument is one which uses object to perform actions/verbs instead of concepts, and one which is non-contradictory. Nothing to do with rules. Just reasoning 101."

Rule: A code of practice.

That is your code of practice for a rational argument!

"Tautologies are DEFINED to be so….they have nothing to do with truth. How can something that is defined and asserted have anything to do with truth? If it did, then we might as well define God into existence as a "truth" and settle all the God arguments, right?"

You are right!

"Air necessarily has shape and is an object because air comes in surface-to-surface contact with other objects and performs phenomena, like ripping roofs off houses or even waving that flag."

Okay. You win.

"No I didn’t…you did! The Moon exists or not irrespective of our logic & rules. We define what EXIST means, and IF the Moon passes our definition with flying colors, then we can say that the Moon exists pursuant to our rational and non-contradictory definition. No logic is used at all. You need to stop limiting your thinking abilities like youtube atheists do. Logic has its purpose in tautological systems which are driven by rules….like technology, computing, business, etc. Logic has no purpose in reality and only leads to irrational conclusions, as I've previously shown with the cell syllogism."

What is definition? Definitely not what is real. That is a system driven by rules!

"Irrelevant what YOU claim it HAS to do in order to please you and make you sleep well at night. If you cannot justify your statement, then it’s worthless. You need to justify what human-invented rules have to do with reality. Let’s have it!"

Everything has to be sound in logic or it fails. Funk it, you be right the syllogism is valid, but it is not sound. I ain't claiming logic is limitless! Logic is limited by reality!

"Irrelevant! A logical argument is VALID by DERIVATION whether you like it or not! Deal with it. Suck it up! If you don’t agree with its conclusion, then use your God-given brain to formulate an argument without tautologies."

There! Look! you have to say "valid by derivation" you are ignoring reasoning! Logic is nothing without reason.

"Again….it is LOGICALLY valid according to the DERIVATION from the axioms and premises. It may not be valid according to reality….BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY? You need a Physics argument to deal with that."

No it is not! Logic is illogical without reality! It is limited by reality. Physics is a system with rules! Remember what you yourself said about that?

"You still confuse TAUTOLOGY with REALITY! My God….I don’t know what to do with you. Maybe I should buy you a beer and have a face-to-face chat….."

Okay.

"A square and a circle are artificial objects of geometry which are invented and defined by us. Geometric objects are ideal objects defined by us. That there are no square-circles follows BY DEFINITION….not by opinion or by logic or by truth, proof or evidence. Understand?"

Definition is a system with rules! You are deducing that!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“You are applying rules right there. You are applying a rule of non-contradiction in justifying arguments.”

Nope, never did. You are asserting that I did. I justified all my statements….if you wanna call that “rules” in your Relgion, knock yourself out….nobody cares. I never dogmatically decreed any rule you had to swallow. But keep kicking the ball around.

.

“Rule: A code of practice.”

Exactly! Off with your heads if you don’t follow it blindly!

.

“Everything has to be sound in logic or it fails.”

Nonsense! Logic has no sound or auditoriums. You confuse logic with the music industry!

.

“you have to say "valid by derivation" you are ignoring reasoning! “

Nope! Logic has NO reasoning whatsoever. ALL LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE DERIVED FROM THEIR PREMISES AND AXIOMS. Logic only has to do with DERIVATIONS, nothing else. That’s all there is to logic. This activity you call “reasoning” is out-of-context with logic. Logic 101.

.

“Physics is a system with rules!”

LOL…no! Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, enact rules and punish those who break them. It is Philosophy which studies concepts, Logic that studies rules, and Religion which deals with the motion of concepts.

Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.

.

“Definition is a system with rules!”

LOL…no way! Learn what a definition is…

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-a-...


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"Still, they aren't "pulling" things in by "pushing" them away!"

Exactly! But you said, "rule says what is possible or impossible." I was just pointing out that there are certain 'rules' that say it IS possible.

So much for rules.


Pompissed 3 years ago

"Exactly! But you said, "rule says what is possible or impossible." I was just pointing out that there are certain 'rules' that say it IS possible.

So much for rules."

Okay, you win, something can pull by pushing away as you just pointed out.

"Nonsense! Logic has no sound or auditoriums. You confuse logic with the music industry!"

And peanuts are a genetic hybrid of peas and nuts.

Okay, I've had it! You win! Okay? You win! Logic is not even worth it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Sorry, can't agree with you....there are no winners or losers. An argument is either rational or irrational. That's the best we can ever hope to accomplish. Save the winners and losers for the Miss America contest.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"Okay, you win, something can pull by pushing away as you just pointed out."

You misunderstand. It is irrational to say that "something can pull by pushing away" yet that is what the 'rules' of Quantum field theory say about gravitons.

So much for rules.


Fly 3 years ago

Just so you are aware, logic is a paradox, which therefore cannot exist nor work, Logic works on the assumption logic works. Without that base, your circular logic surrounding logic fails. That means, therefore, that even logic, as pure and perfect as it may seem to anyone, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, etc., is based on pure belief. Without the faith or belief that the logic will work to do what you believe it does, it will not work. Try working it out. If you would like to logically see if logic CAN work, start at any logical base and work from there. Logic, like mathematics, exists abstractly, and therefore in conformance to the abstract minds which create it. If you simply change 1 thing, the whole system changes and no longer functions. Logic is neither an end all nor objective. At some point you must give up logic and say "It just is", which is the same as saying, "Because that's what I believe." If you think that logic is good for explaining atheism is correct, then you have a lot more logic and philosophy to work through. I agree with some of your points, but not all. Logic begins with belief, which, if I am not mistaken, sort of means nothing, no matter what, can be rationally explains, only theoretically. RELIGION!

And the one guy is right, by imposing rules because of your belief in logic, you only create further fallacy. Logic is a nice tool, but absolutely not a definite tool.


I don't get it 2 years ago

What is reasoning and rationality then if it's not logical? (I have not taken logic 101, but I think I will now) I really would like to know, and I'm confused from the article.

Your example on the human body cells and how it would be invisible, while true in the its construction, does not make sense when you imply that it fails because it doesn't match up with reality. Your construction itself doesn't match up reality in this case.

1=number

2=number

1=2

--is the same. In reality it makes no sense, and that's because it's not talking about reality, it's talking in the context of the rules you made. So can't logic derive truth about realities if it uses reality as what it is deriving from?

I was under the impression that logic is also closely tied to mathematics. In math, we assign an abstraction on reality like numbers. These numbers and operations done to them have been consistent with realities, like the prediction of black holes and relativity, which were later empirically observed. And isn't mathematics constructed from logic? You can use the postulates of Euclid to prove certain equation like the Pythagorean theorem, but you can also algebraically, using different sets of definitions, to derive the theorem.

So I am very confused now. We define what 1 is, what is 2, and what + is from reality. In our definition, 1 + 1 equals 2. Is this not logic, and isn't this also reasoning? I am confused, and if anyone is still here to clear it up, I would be thankful.


Pretzel logic 2 years ago

Quote

Proof implies certainty, even though certainty is impossible to attain

End quote

How do you prove that certainty is impossible to attain?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

How is one certain (to prove) that certainty is impossible to obtain?

Isn't that like asking: is it true that truth is true?

That's an irrational question! You can't invoke the concept itself when evaluating it....it's circular.

What you should be asking is: why is proof/certainty impossible for a human to attain?

Because proof=truth=certainty=opinion!

If you want to understand why, the answer is in my article on "what is truth".


Pretzel logic 2 years ago

Yes, it is circular! The truth is you can't prove that certainty is impossible to attain and thus that makes it just your opinion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Pretzel: “Yes, it is circular! “

Pretzel: “The truth is you can't prove…. it just your opinion”

Even if you did “prove” it would still be an OPINION. Why? Because PROOF = OPINION. Hence, the “truth” you just proved is an opinion. Ergo…..TRUTH=OPINION!

LOL….your Church logic has again tied you up into a circular pretzel, Pretzel!

Every single statement you post is a contradiction….hilarious! That’s what happens when boneheads like you come here to parrot their Priest that whispered “truths” & “proofs” into their ear while he had his way with them in the confession box.

If you ever wanna stop chasing your tail in circles and tying yourself into a pretzel, learn the basics of Truth and Proof…..

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

Otherwise you are just playing Whack-A-Troll, while YOU are the troll. Can't get more circular than that.


Pretzel logic 2 years ago

Quote

Even if you did “prove” it would still be an OPINION. Why? Because PROOF = OPINION. Hence, the “truth” you just proved is an opinion. Ergo…..TRUTH=OPINION!

End Quote

Exactly!

Does that, what YOU just wrote, for some reason NOT apply to your claim that certainty is impossible to attain?


Pretzel logic 2 years ago

btw, calling me a troll is a classic ad hominem fallacy, possibly employed because you don't have any rejoinder without fallacy.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“Does that, what YOU just wrote, for some reason NOT apply to your claim that certainty is impossible to attain?”

No it doesn’t, you fool, because I never posted a single CLAIM. A claim is an unjustified assertion! I already justified exactly why any claim of “truth” and “proof” necessarily resolves to an OPINION. But if a fool had half a brain in his noodle, he would have read the justification in the link provided and referenced now for the THIRD TIME!!!!

“calling me a troll is a classic ad hominem fallacy”

An Ad Hom Fallacy is an argument that hinges its justification on YOU being a troll or moron or whatever. It goes like this: “You are a troll, moron, etc…..and THIS is the reason why my argument is correct, justified, etc.”

I never made such an argument!

Clearly, a troll like yourself has NO clue what an Ad Hom is, much less where his brain is. Calling someone a troll for not reading the link referenced multiple times…..and calling someone a moron because they post nothing but contradictions, has nothing to do with MY argument of why TRUTH=PROOF=OPINION. That argument is already justified in the link provided BEFORE a brain-dead troll such as yourself even stepped foot in here and even BEFORE yo momma popped you out!

Learn the basics before coming here to dabble in Fallacies, Logic & Philosophy……and pull your head out of your butt!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

So if you wanna come here and play in the big league with the big guns, you will first have to educate yourself on the fundamentals. Otherwise....like I said....all you are doing is whacking yourself on the head.


Pretzel logic 2 years ago

You don't handle being challenged very well, do you.

quote

No it doesn’t, you fool, because I never posted a single CLAIM. A claim is an unjustified assertion! I already justified exactly why any claim of “truth” and “proof” necessarily resolves to an OPINION. But if a fool had half a brain in his noodle, he would have read the justification in the link provided and referenced now for the THIRD TIME!!!!

end quote

You're not following the investigation without confirmation bias, sadly. From the quote, it is CLEAR that your statement "certainty is impossible to attain," is your OPINION just like all the other assertions. Or are you immune to the conclusions you have come to for some reason? Why?

Listen, I believe your conclusion. However, the way you went about it was at times pretty sloppy (if you want to discuss where, I'm game). I agree with you but your rationale for believing logic does not provide proofs and truths is different from mine.

Are you certain that I am a fool?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“is your OPINION”

Opinion: A statement predicated on one’s subjectivity (i.e. invokes an observer, their sensory system, etc).

This is how we settle this....and it works every single time, LOL.

You have yet to justify YOUR claim why it’s an opinion. If you can do so, I promise to PayPal you $5000 USD. I am on the record!

Now you have 2 options:

a) Either justify WHY my argument is an opinion, as YOU claim…..and I will PayPal you $5000 USD, or

b) Admit that you didn’t read or understand my argument…..no shame in this.

You will only post what I requested on a) or b) here if you wish to continue the discussion. Dodging the issue will get you banned. This is more than fair to the both of us….LOL…it is actually $5000 worth of FAIRNESS to you and a LOSS for me!

I am willing to put it on the line…..are you?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Opinion: A statement predicated on one’s subjectivity (i.e. invokes an observer, their sensory system, etc).

Pretzel still hasn’t copy/pasted a single line in my argument where I invoke MY SENSORY system to validate my argument, hence making it my opinion. Why? Because my argument is OBJECTIVE (i.e. observer-independent).

He concedes that my argument is not an opinion, but the fool still doesn’t understand why. He can’t put his finger on it. Why is that? Because the fool doesn’t understand the difference between a SUBJECTIVE and an OBJECTIVE argument. And since the fool wants to remain a bonehead for the rest of his life, he won’t look up the definitions of these two terms….even though I already posted them.

Pretzel: “Are you certain that I am a fool?”

Certainty = proof = truth = OPINION.

That you are a FOOL is an OBJECTIVE (devoid of people’s opinions) issue which you clearly demonstrated here by not being able to justify your claim that my argument invokes my sensory system.

Not only that…..but we are dealing with an embarrassed COWARD who doesn’t want to admit that he didn’t read the article on the definition of truth, proof and on the definition of OPINION, subjective and objective.

$$$ challenges always expose the foolish trolls!


David Lundin profile image

David Lundin 2 years ago from Stockholm, Sweden

Interesting article...

Do you think logic has any place in philosophy or science at all? For eg. ethics? i.e deriving conslusions from base values, hypotheses etc?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

David,

Ethics is subjective as it is predicated on the opinion of an individual. Eating animals, murdering babies by smashing their heads on rocks, slavery and genocide are all deemed to be ethical to adherents of the Bible....but unethical to others. Logic is inapplicable in this non-tautological domain.

Remember: logic is a tautological rule-based system of derivational inference. Any logical system one develops already has all the conclusions in the axioms and premises (i.e. rules) BEFORE any inference is made. An inference simply takes one or more axioms & premises and forms a conclusion that is deemed to be VALID within this system, but never outside it (like in reality). One’s attempt at a logical system may decree that murder is unethical…..but a single example of murder in society instantly contradicts their contrived logical system of morality. Logic is not applicable in this context.

And Hypotheses are assumptions that are used to explain Scientific Theories. They have nothing to do with logic. For example, let’s Hypothesize that an EM rope under tension pulls all atoms in the Universe together. This is what mediates gravity. Logic is out of context here. Systems of logic, axioms and premises play ZERO role in Science and reality.


David Lundin profile image

David Lundin 2 years ago from Stockholm, Sweden

Yeah, i'm onboard.

I guess i was thinking in terms of; further derivation might be needed to clarify and further describe your "opinion" on ethics.

If i for example value reduction of suffering (which i do), logic might help me investigate the implications of my values.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

If you value reduction of suffering, then you already have your reasons for it. Now you can participate in a debate with someone who loves suffering. Whomever can appeal to the audience's personal preferences will win the debate. If your debate was in front an audience of murderers, you would lose for sure. Logic isn't gonna do anything for you.

It is Theologians and Religious Philosophers of the past 2000 years that have attempted to force Aristotle's logic into the domain of ethics/morals and other subjectivities. And since most folks didn't have a clue what logic was and thought of it as some "authoritative" magical system of "truth", they swallowed the notion that logic is a tool to make any and all decisions. So this is where we are today with Theists, Atheists, Fortune Tellers, Astrologers and Mathematicians alike...the era of extreme misapplication of logic through ignorance.


Fernando Barbosa profile image

Fernando Barbosa 2 years ago

Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

This is not valid.

I can see two interpretation of your argument

#CASE A

if you are saying that :

C = cells in general

H = Human Body

X = agglomeration of C

Then, all can be reviewed as :

P1 : C is invisible to naked eye

P2 : H = X

C1 : H is invisible to naked eye

Which is not valid. But :

#CASE B

If your argument is :

C = agglomeration of cells

H = Human Body

P1 : C is invisible to naked eye

P2 : H = C

C1 : Therefore, H is invisible to naked eye

Then, this is true, since P1 and P2 are true. But not all P1 is true.

The same apply to the atom/air example

#CASE A

A = Atoms in general

G = Agglomeration of A

O = Air

P1 : A are invisible to naked eye

P2 : O = G

C1 : O is invisible to naked eye

This is simple bad logic.

#CASE B

A = agglomeration of atoms

O = Air

P1 : A is invisible to naked eye

P2 : O = A

C1 : O is invisible to naked eye

Good logic. True if P1 and P2 are true. But not all instances of A are invisible, nor O = A.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Fernando,

“C1 : H is invisible to naked eye

Which is not valid”

Valid how? Valid to whom….to you? Are you kiddin’ me or what?

Regardless of your personal feelings and opinions, this is a LOGICALLY VALID conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises as per the System of Classical Logic.

You may not like the conclusion of this logical argument, but your subjectivities have nothing to do with logic. Logic is pre-defined to work in this context – you cannot fight it. In fact, you would have to deny logic and go outside its scope in order to attempt to refute this logical argument. Even if you try to use the so-called Logical Fallacies against this argument, you will be pissing outside the bucket. Why? Because the so-called Logical Fallacies have nothing to do with the scope of a Logical System! Remember: only axioms + premises + inferred conclusions form the scope of a logical argument – nothing else.

The ONLY way to refute the above “cell argument” is to deny logic and use a rational argument which is predicated on reality (i.e. existence) rather than tautologies. Understand?

.

“C1 : Therefore, H is invisible to naked eye

Then, this is true, since P1 and P2 are true. But not all P1 is true.”

Clearly it isn’t true because I can see a human in front of me. Truth is your OPINION and nothing more. What is true to you, is a LIE to your neighbor. You have clearly “proven” that here today.


Aida 21 months ago

I could hear the song as I was reading you hadeing and it is still "singing" in my head. Only know those couple of words though!!Lovely pic of the ice, ice..... :-)Kram Anette :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 21 months ago Author

Thank you, Anette. I knew you'd love the ice pic. I miss my professional photography years. But as you know, I am into bigger and better things now. Ice ice baby!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working