LISTEN TO ME: LOGIC IS WRONG!!

LISTEN TO ME: LOGIC IS WRONG!!

Logic is highly illogical!

A premise can only be valid as long as it is true.

A premise itself can be interpreted as a conclusion of former premises.

For example:

>an apple is red

And these former premises are the conclusions of former former premises, which are the conclusions of former former former premises, and so on.

So what's the original premise?

Certainly this loop will lead us to a beggining, a place where all premises, all valid observations and claims, come from.

What is that premise, then? How can we know it exists? Prove me it does!

In other words, if you say anything, and I ask you "why is that" repedeatly over and over you'll eventually hit a point where you won't be able to give me an answer.

So your whole statement, regardless of how simple it is, has been debunked from its deepest core.

Logic may work at first glance, but when you look deep inside it, that is only because its operating within its own logical framework.

IN THE END, THINGS HAVE NO MEANING.

There is no thing such as "logic", this doesn't exist in the Universe. It's only a mental creation of humans to fullfill their existentialist feelings, which themselves are the mere results of meaningless hormones that are made of meaningless atoms which are made of meaningless quarks and leptons.

LIFE IS ESCAPISM.

Prove me wrong.
>PROTIP: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

theonion.com/article/guy-in-philosophy-class-needs-to-shut-the-fuck-up-1804
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What I'm trying to say is that the one original logic premise that should have logically originated all others cannot be logically proven to be valid, because there are no other premises to prove it, and therefore, everything that comes after it is very likely to be untrue.

Read Wittgenstein.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

Logic has been studied since Greco-Roman times.

> Logic is highly illogical
Doesn't means that is wrong.
You can be illogical but right in the end.

There are loads of systems of logic and none of them are perfect. Read more books and smoke less weed.

I think there is a structure with a clear cut begining.
Maybe there is no one source, no bottom from which eveything goes out of?
We are always in the middle of things and there is no begining hich we can find.
The search for some fundamental deep explanation, some ultimate truth from which you can start and then explain everything else, might not exist?
We are at every moment grasping on whatever is in that moment and moving forward.

logic is just part of creativity and creativity part of logic

> If you hate the taste of wine,
> How come you drink it till you're blind?
> And if you swear that there's no truth, and who cares,
> How come you say it like you're right?

I'm still not as gay as you OP

Or y'know, the apple isn't red because red is the type of light that it does not absorb

Logic has always been a framework with assumptions about reality, just like any other construct
If being a construct means it's literally nothing then everything is probably a construct and you may as well neck yourself right now

>Let me explain to you guys why logic is wrong
>using logic!

Yes. This is how it works.
Premises are accepted as axioms. There isn't one form of logic but several forms of logic.
Formal logic by its contemporary definition is necessarily valid but may be unsound (its premises to be false.)
This isn't a very profound insight but simply means that you've realised that logics are mainly deductively strong descriptions of the world where the premises may be wrong or not.
Logicians accept this as true and you have not disproved logic.
If we take a correspondence theory of truth then an axiom may reflect the world or not. Therefore an axiom may be true or not. Therefore logics may be sound. And therefore your argument isn't universally correct.

What you're truly discussing is the Münchhausen trilemma.
This isn't discussed a lot in circles of logicians since it simply does not touch their practice (Popper is not a good logician). It is however a problem to epistemology.
Logicians prove things given certain axioms.
They say "If these axioms are true this necessarily follows."
Epistemology tries to find out how knowledge, justifications and beliefs work.
Most people think this trilemma is problematic since it devastates the justification of all beliefs. And thus we are not possible to claim we "know" things.
It is not disproving logic but it is just being a sceptic. You're being that guy. That sceptic undergrad guy. Don't be that sceptic undergrad guy.
theonion.com/article/guy-in-philosophy-class-needs-to-shut-the-fuck-up-1804

Actually...
We have four situations:
1. The logic is valid.
2. The logic is not valid.
A. The logic says "I am valid."
B. The logic says "I am not valid."

1A. is the preferred situation.
1B. is impossible.
2A. is pretty bad.
2B. not as bad as 2A.

It is possible to doubt logic by arguing that 2B or 2A are true. Let's look at 2B. If logic says that itself is invalid, then since 1B is impossible, is impossible, we must draw the conclusion that 2.
So we know that B.
Either 1B or 2B.
-1B
Therefore 2B.
There is no contradiction in this.^
It simply means that logic->-logic.

this. especially during premises 5 and 6 of the tractatus Wittgenstein goes into some detail about the origins and ultimate conclusions/goals of logic. you need to do some background reading before you post something as fallacious as that.

Time.

If humans couldn't pass on complex information through time your argument might not be pointless.

Even if logic isn't 100%, or there could be infinitely different outcomes, there's math to show which is the most likely.

And then all the time humans have been on earth passing on the human experience really rounds out the numbers - to give us fact and logic.


The original premise? Try survival, pursuit of happiness, acclimation of power, security, curiosity, and the competitive nature of man, for a few.

Logic isn't false. There's even logical absolutes which are true at all times in all possible worlds.

The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

Logic is something that can be demonstrated to be true. And logical fallacies can be shown to not be true because we can show why they would be wrong and give examples for how they can be wrong. Logic is demonstrable.

Your whole post sounds like some shit kids thought in school when first learning about it because "lel hurrrr like wut if we culd show logic is wrong by using logic? hurr hurr!"

>The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
Look up dialetheism.
>The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.
Look up intuitionistic logic.
>Logic is something that can be demonstrated to be true.
No, the conclusions of logics are always valid, but see my post here:
Logics may be invalid.

>The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
>Look up dialetheism.

I have glass of water on my desk. Is this glass of water not a glass of water? If not, then premise is true. If I had a rock in my hand, would it be a rock or not a rock? Show me examples where something is and simultaneously also is not that thing.

>The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.
>Look up intuitionistic logic.

Which doesn't go against the logical absolutes. It either is what it is or it isn't. It cannot both be and not be at the same time. Because if it is, then it is. If it isn't, then it is not.

The original premise is your direct experience of the apple without conceptualization of it. All you're doing is denying your own experience as valid.

I guess if that's how you want to look at it, you're right in saying logic doesn't exist physically in the universe, just like your first person experience of the apple doesn't exist in the universe.

But not everyone is silly enough to deny the only thing which defines what is true and real to us. Also you really shouldn't be criticizing logic from a logic point of view.

Not the guy I'm replying to, but before anyone with a shitty understanding of Schrödinger's Cat brings it up, it is not that the cat is both physically alive and dead at the same time, it's an imperfect metaphor for humans' inability to determine the particle's state without observation.

Nothing can simultaneously be something and not be that same thing.

> have glass of water on my desk. Is this glass of water not a glass of water? If not, then premise is true. If I had a rock in my hand, would it be a rock or not a rock? Show me examples where something is and simultaneously also is not that thing.

It is used mainly to construct dialectics. We may have two conclusions in the context at once which contradicts each other.
It could be argued that there are true metaphysical paradoxes as well.
I am saying that your statement is controversial. It isn't self-evident. I don't defend this position, but there are people who do. And it is possible to construct logics using this.

>Which doesn't go against the logical absolutes. It either is what it is or it isn't. It cannot both be and not be at the same time. Because if it is, then it is. If it isn't, then it is not.

No, this is a circular argument. Intuitionistic logic is a very live and well form of logic. There are even mathematicians who only use intuitionistic deductions.

Just look them up. Read a book on them. They are too complex to study here but there are logics like that. You may say "I don't like that", but then it means you've accepted premises without a justification. Then you fall into an epistemological concern and not a concern about logic.

>Also you really shouldn't be criticizing logic from a logic point of view.

No, IT IS ALLOWED TO CRITICISE LOGIC FROM LOGIC. See: These are some of the main problems of logic and philosophers like Russell, Gödel etc. studied them.

I disagree with OP, here is my explanation of why OP is misguided:
Please shut up if you haven't studied logic.

Schrödinger's cat was an ad absurdum argument, yes. It is to show that some interpretations of QM are absurd. The problem is that due to things like Bell's theorem there are reasons to accept the absurd conclusions.

So no, some physicists advocate that the cat is both dead and alive.

Okay, so what you're saying is that you don't have any examples of things that defy the logical absolutes or even begin to come up with something that could, and just appeal to different forms of logic like mathematics which works on an entirely different set of logic than the logical absolutes do?

Okay, I accept you conceding the argument. But be sure to let me know when you figure out how something both is and isn't.

As I said, I am not defending that claim.
I am defending the claim that what you said is not universally accepted even by prominent respected philosophers and mathematicians.

What you're saying is akin to saying "The Riemann hypothesis is true" just because most mathematicians assume it is true.
We have no definitive evidence it is true. Therefore it is not a neutral claim in mathematics.

Claiming the two principles you did are likewise not neutral claims in philosophy, logic and mathematics.

If I would want to be even more pretentious I could also state that P is P may be doubted to some extent.
Let's say we have P
and S:=P.
Then a person need not only know P to deduce that PS but also that S:=P. This is a lot of the time dogmatically ignored.
Saying that PS is an a priori truth.
But Quine made an analytic/synthetic distinction when it comes to this due to we have to know the defining sentence.
So P is P may not be logically self-evident if we include syntax into our logic.
Even if they have the same syntax we can claim that some words have the same syntax.
Like "She is inflammable" and "She is inflammable." They are contradictory statements (due to the ambiguity of the word 'inflammable').
But does "She is inflammable" lead to "She is inflammable?"
So 'P is P' is true if:
P is syntactically unique.

Death.

Argue that muhfugger.

>I am defending the claim that what you said is not universally accepted even by prominent respected philosophers and mathematicians.

But they are. Mathematics has no bearing on anything, because it's a different form of logic. Because all we see and can even theorize works on those principles. Something cannot BE X and NOT BE X. That's fucking absurd.

>What you're saying is akin to saying "The Riemann hypothesis is true" just because most mathematicians assume it is true.
>We have no definitive evidence it is true. Therefore it is not a neutral claim in mathematics.

It's not akin to that, because mathematics works on different kinds of logic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic read this. And you'll see that you're trying to conflate several different kinds of logic as the same thing when they are not even close to the same. Mathematics has a different form of logic and its own axioms. The logical absolutes just are. Clearly they are. Because A has to be A. It can't be A and then not be A because that is a contradiction. It has to be A or not A. If it's both, then it's contradicting itself and it wouldn't be true. If it is A, then it's A. If it is not A, then it's not A and must be something else entirely.


>Claiming the two principles you did are likewise not neutral claims in philosophy, logic and mathematics.

1. I cited the three logical absolutes. Three, not two.
2. Mathematics and logic (of which there are several different kinds) work on fundamentally different forms of logic. Neither of which refutes the claims I made.

Well, logical absolutes aren't bound by your sophist word play. A rock would be a fucking rock and not not a rock whether or not we were there to observe it or conceptualize it. So, your fanciful bullshit there amounts to nothing because they would necessarily be true even if nobody was there to talk about the rock or make up sophist arguments for why the rock may actually not be a rock at all.


What? Death is death. That's not a refutation of anything.

>Something cannot BE X and NOT BE X.
Some claim it can.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
I study theoretical philosophy and mathematics. I am very well aware of what I am speaking about. I have read four or five books on logic.

There are different kinds of logics and the different kinds of logics may be interpreted by metaphysics, physics and science and so on.

You cannot apply your logic as the measuring stick of other kinds of logics.

You're simply running in circles. First of all you need to show that THEIR FORMALISATION is necessarily flawed or inconsistent in some way. You cannot take YOUR FORMALISATION and show that in YOUR LOGIC that it is inconsistent.
If you want to do that, study the logics I proposed. If you're going to say that they are absurd, so be it. You may think so. But you don't do it from a logical absolute but rather from an intuitive stance, and you wind up in epistemological concerns.

It is not my sophist wordplay. It is the wordplay of the famous philosopher Quine.

I say that these positions exist. I am not defending them. If you want to study them look them up.
Your logical bedrock is disputed. When you've read these philosophers you can come up with reasons to not believe them.
You're being an obnoxious undergraduate student. You have no idea what the theories say and yet you try to refute them on a message board. These theories exist. These positions exist. Your position is not self-evident. It is an intuitive and common sense position so most people accept it.

In its simplest terms logic is defined as: if the premises are true (whatever that means) then the conclusion must be true. Logic has nothing to do with truth as such, but with the structure of thought. In a valid logical argument you cannot imagine a situation in which the permises are all true while the conclusion is not.

>Some claim it can.

And until they show it's possible, the logical absolutes apply because we see them in everything thus far. Our thoughts, what we can imagine, what we see around us, etc. Just because something is disputed does not make those things valid. Your argument was sophistry based on the ambiguity of a word and had to do with vagueness while the logical absolutes deal with what IS, not just our ability to imagine or know what it is. Whether I know what is meant by "inflammable" does not change the fact that it is true that she can either be lit on fire or she cannot be lit on fire. One or the other must be true. My not knowing has nothing to do with what IS, so your appeal to sophistry and vagueness does nothing to show failures in the logic.

>Your position is not self-evident.

Okay, so if it is not self evident then show me anything that doesn't conform to them. Anything at all. Because so far everything adheres to those three logical absolutes. Because they simply must be whether or not we can conceptualize it. Playing semantics with vague words doesn't change the underlying idea of what things are or their nature. It doesn't change the essence of things. A has to be A. If it's not A, then saying it IS A is fucking absurd and makes no sense. It's 100% impossible. And sorry that you get butthurt when your sophistry is discredited, but that's what you're arguing here. Just because some guy said it's possible does not mean it is possible or that his disputing it must be taken seriously.

I can deny gravity right now for instance. Does that make gravity not true? Should people listen to me just because I said gravity is bullshit rather than viewing what is self evident and demonstrable and following that?

tl;dr: Your fellow sophists saying it isn't true doesn't mean it's not true until they demonstrate it isn't. Eat a dick.

And before you go on about evidence, I can sit here all day and point out what conforms to the logical absolutes. I have ample evidence for why they must be so.

If you say they're not self evident, the burden of proof is on you. Even one counter example would show it's not self evident. So, if they're not self evident, there must be ample doubt for these things being true and a plethora of things you can point out which don't adhere to them besides vague wordplay sophistry and some guy saying "it's wrong".

It is not my argument and it is not sophistry. Read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" by Quine.
You clearly have no idea what sophistry means. Pointing out that one must have knowledge of the syntactical definition of a concept is a real argument. Sophistry would be more like arguing by "Muh emotions."

And again, you continuously assume correspondence theory of truth. You base your arguments in empiricism or in circular reasoning. These are not logical bedrocks.

There are so many other positions you've never heard about. I just wanted to inform you that other positions exist and you may want to study them before making grandiose claims.

The existence of other positions and studying them will make you realise that your claims may not be as universal as you thought.

>Because so far everything adheres to those three logical absolutes.

No. There are formalised logics which don't care about the latter two. There is reason to doubt the first one.

I will not start discussing the intricate parts of troublesome to understand logics. It is too heavy for a message board.

The positions exist, the positions are academically respected, and they could be interpreted metaphysically.

Metaphysics and empiricism do not determine logic. Logics are purely nominal until interpretation is given to them.
Metaphysics and empiricism may state which logics are more intuitive, pragmatic etc.

Tell me one book on logic you've read. Have you even proven the soundness and completeness of propositional logic?

You seem to completely misunderstand what logic is. It is not my fault you do this, so please refrain from using insults.