Originally posted by vivify
If we're discussing scientific theories, then they can (and are) tested for such flaws through exhaustive peer review.

If we're discussing something philosophical, a scientific approach can be taking towards that as well. Truth tables (or logic tables) are one example.

So the exhaustive peer review and/or truth tables would bring us absolute certainty?

Are these not based upon reason as well?

Originally posted by whodey
So how is one to know if the argument if flawed logically or if the evidence is flaw proof?

By 'flaw proof' I assume you mean a proof that was thought to be a proof but later shown to be wrong by newer evidence.

What you are aiming at is to destroy the foundations of reason because you want to establish the bible as the ultimate authority and therefore any attempt at logic will fail because of what it says in the bible.

I think it safe to say, I can reason that if I drop a ten ton weight on my head I am going to be squished like a bug even if it comes at me from only one inch above my head.

Is there any basis to say that reasoning is flawed?

Remember, reasoning and the rules for reasoning was invented by man. If we set up a system of logic and follow it, we can conclude our reasoning in that system is correct.

You merely question the possibility of flawed reasoning. Your real problem is you don't accept that mankind has enough brain power to come up with real logical reasoning, like I said, just like the idiots who think aliens exist because mankind is way too stupid to have ever built the pyramids, therefore Aliens exist and they had nothing better to do than to help a single man build a monument to his ego.

Your anti human intelligence stance is clear.

You question whether humans can EVER think logically but you refuse to acknowledge there ARE people smarter than you ( I am not automatically putting myself in that category) but there ARE very very smart people around who actually have rational thoughts with unflawed logic.

I showed you one. Do you think that is wrong?

Originally posted by whodey
So the exhaustive peer review and/or truth tables would bring us absolute certainty?

Are these not based upon reason as well?

"Absolute certainty" in scientific terms may be a goal, but it's never assumed to be reached. All we can do as humans is make sure that our reasoning and evidence is the best it can be.

Originally posted by vivify
"Absolute certainty" in scientific terms may be a goal, but it's never assumed to be reached. All we can do as humans is make sure that our reasoning and evidence is the best it can be.

Thanks for that. 😵

Originally posted by sonhouse
By 'flaw proof' I assume you mean a proof that was thought to be a proof but later shown to be wrong by newer evidence.

What you are aiming at is to destroy the foundations of reason because you want to establish the bible as the ultimate authority and therefore any attempt at logic will fail because of what it says in the bible.

I think it safe to sa ...[text shortened]... ly have rational thoughts with unflawed logic.

I showed you one. Do you think that is wrong?

Is it good to embrace our finite and flawed reasoning, or does it threaten our perceived grip on reality?

Originally posted by JS357
irrationalism: a system of belief or action that disregards or contradicts rational principles.

circular reasoning: a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

The problem with the question "Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?" is, if it is true. its truth can't be reliably r ...[text shortened]... conclusions on human reasoning. That's why we call them conclusions. Besides, we need the eggs.

Right. Consider the following—

“Whatever Gawain says must be true because

Gawain says he always tells the truth.”

—versus—

“If we want to measure anything,

we need a standard of measurement with which to measure.”

—or—

“The only way to reason about anything

is to apply reason.”

—versus—

“An argument is deductively valid if the conclusion follows from the premises;

this argument is deductively valid; therefore

it’s conclusions follow from the premises.”

—or—

“The only way the cat can escape is if someone lets him out;

the cat has escaped; therefore

someone let the cat out.”

_____________________________________________

Now consider the following—

“If one cannot reason from unreasonable arguments,

then all of one’s arguments will be logically flawed;

this argument is unreasonable; therefore

this argument is logically valid.”

—I think the very kind of absurdity you point out.

____________________________________________

NOTE: An argument is valid if its conclusions follow from the premises; an argument is sound if the conclusions also are empirically true. A circular “argument” can be formally valid, e.g.—

“If Gawain tells the truth, then Gawain tells the truth;

Gawain tells the truth; therefore

Gawain tells the truth.”

It might also express a true statement—but the truth does not follow from the terms of the "argument", (hence the “___” around “argument” here). This is why circular reasoning is considered an informal, not a formal, logical fallacy.

Originally posted by vistesd

“If Gawain tells the truth, then Gawain tells the truth;

Gawain tells the truth; therefore

Gawain tells the truth.”

I rather like the sound of this Gawain. Do you have his business card?

My own reasoning is less circular, more angular. Does that make me obtuse?

😞

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I rather like the sound of this Gawain. Do you have his business card?

My own reasoning is less circular, more angular. Does that make me obtuse?

😞

Maybe just a bit hypotenuse.

___________________________________

Gawain the destitute Earl of Grey
gave all his lies to a Lady May,
(she of uncertain repute, they say)
though only the truth could make her stay—
his truth remains, but no Lady May.

Originally posted by vistesd
Maybe just a bit hypotenuse.

___________________________________

Gawain the destitute Earl of Grey
gave all his lies to a Lady May,
(she of uncertain repute, they say)
though only the truth could make her stay—
his truth remains, but no Lady May.

And Dylan said (Bobby, not Thomas) Lay lady lay, lay across my big brass bed.....