- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenLogic is based upon the existence of absolute truth. A rejection of absolute truth is a rejection of logic.
A logic that rejects the existence of absolute truth is not self-contradictory. A
logic that would both reject and accept the existence of absolute truth
would be self-contradictory if it does so in the same specific case.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot true at all. Where do you get this rubbish from?
Logic is based upon the existence of absolute truth. A rejection of absolute truth is a rejection of logic.
Try this for a more complete view of how logic functions in respect of the sciences and epistemology in general:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm
22 Feb 07
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerLogic has nothing to do with absolute truth. It is the art of drawing
Logic is based upon the existence of absolute truth. A rejection of absolute truth is a rejection of logic.
undubious conclusions from given facts. I am a man. All men are mortal.
Hence I am mortal. That is logic. This is also logic: I wear blue. The
sky is blue. Hence, I wear the sky. It's definitely not true, but very
logical.
Depending on the amount of facts you have on a given issue, your logic
may or may not help you get to the truth. It's also important from where
you get your facts. If I can't duplicate whatever methods you use to
derive your facts then your facts are useless in a scientific sense, and
your logic means nothing then (other than to you and people who - like
you - have witnessed the same "facts" ).
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenActually, the second example is invalid. It supposes two generalisations with a specific conclusion, consequently the premises can be true and the conclusion false.
Logic has nothing to do with absolute truth. It is the art of drawing
undubious conclusions from given facts. I am a man. All men are mortal.
Hence I am mortal. That is logic. This is also logic: I wear blue. The
sky is blue. Hence, I am a sky. It's definitely not true, but very logical.
Depending on where you derive your "facts" and how comp ...[text shortened]... uestioned, then the logic is
useless since you can pretty much draw any conclusion from it.
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanYes, I realised that and edited it. Now it should be valid. No?
Actually, the second example is invalid. It supposes two generalisations with a specific conclusion, consequently the premises can be true and the conclusion false.
Ah, no, I see what you mean now. My bad.
I love my chimp next to my posts. It really brings forth the gist of them,
don't you think? 😕😵
22 Feb 07
The important point is that a given conclusion based on given facts is either a valid logical deduction or not, whether or not the facts are true.
The result of a logical deduction is only true if the facts are true. Thus if there are no absolutely true facts there will be no absolutely true logical results but the logic will still remain and still be valid.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenWould you say that facts are absolutely true?
Logic has nothing to do with absolute truth. It is the art of drawing
undubious conclusions from given facts. I am a man. All men are mortal.
Hence I am mortal. That is logic. This is also logic: I wear blue. The
sky is blue. Hence, I wear the sky. It's definitely not true, but very
logical.
Depending on the amount of facts you have on a gi ...[text shortened]... ng then (other than to you and people who - like
you - have witnessed the same "facts" ).
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI would say that facts are absolutely true. However this is keeping in mind that the definition of 'absolutely true' is not a direct extension of 'true' used in the previous context.
Would you say that facts are absolutely true?
By 'absolutely true' I mean that it is a fact for everyone and not 'logically true'.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanNot true at all.
Not true at all. Where do you get this rubbish from?
Try this for a more complete view of how logic functions in respect of the sciences and epistemology in general:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm
Based upon what? If there is no absolute truth as you claim, then all you are doing is stating some flimsy opinion. What is true for you would not be true for me and you are just wasting your time by debating.
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerI just now realised that I must separate observation, fact and logical
Would you say that facts are absolutely true?
conclusion. Let's say I can see an angel in this very room, right now. I
would say that it's a fact that I can see this angel. Does angels exist
then? No, not necessarily. That would be a leap of faith to believe that
angels exist, simply because I can now observe one right here, next to
me. It can be pretty much anything.
So, I've made an observation. Now it must be verified by others before
we can safely assume that the cause of this vision is external to my own
self, and not some hallucination or misinterpretation of facts.
Let's now say I ask a few colleagues to join me in here, and they can
also see this angelic being. They identify it as an angel even though I
haven't explained to them what it is I think I'm looking at. We can now
say that it's a fact that something is in my room, external to our own
minds, and that it looks like an angel. But we would still be wrong to say
that angels exist, since we have no idea what is causing this visual
phenomenon.
So, facts would always be absolutely true in that we can observe them at
some level. The cause of these observations is not always known, and
without knowing the cause, any logical conclusions however valid in itself
cannot be considered true. We must know the cause before we can say
with certainty that our logical conclusion is correct and in fact true.
Also, it's not so easy to draw a logical conclusion (as I demonstrated
above at the cost of my own credibility in this discussion). If it's
complicated to draw a logical conclusion from such simple facts, imagine
how hard it is to draw valid conclusions from something as hazy and
mystical as the angel standing in my room without knowing anything
about what might cause such a phenomenon to appear before me.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerFlimsy should be your middle name, you have no idea what you're talking about.
[b]Not true at all.
Based upon what? If there is no absolute truth as you claim, then all you are doing is stating some flimsy opinion. What is true for you would not be true for me and you are just wasting your time by debating.[/b]
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerMany people have answered many questions here, including myself, some have provided links to relevant information, some have taken your points and in a methodical and detailed way have explicated their errors and yet none have managed to sway you from your ridiculous position. I'm done debating, you're just an idiot and calling you such yields just as much worth as actually debating with you.
So you resort to childish insults if you cannot answer a question?
Typical.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI will say it again, since you ignored it the fist time round. Upon what are all your assertions based? Since you do not believe in absolute truth, everything you say is simply your own flimsy opinion. Nothing more.
Many people have answered many questions here, including myself, some have provided links to relevant information, some have taken your points and in a methodical and detailed way have explicated their errors and yet none have managed to sway you from your ridiculous position. I'm done debating, you're just an idiot and calling you such yields just as much worth as actually debating with you.
I am afraid that yours is the ridiculous position.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'll say it again, since you ignored it again, you are an idiot.
I will say it again, since you ignored it the fist time round. [b] Upon what are all your assertions based? Since you do not believe in absolute truth, everything you say is simply your own flimsy opinion. Nothing more.
I am afraid that yours is the ridiculous position.[/b]