Biased logic???

[IDLEchild]

Can logic be biased? Can it fall victim to human perception and be eskwed or is logic infallable no matter which way it is ultimetly concieved or percieved in?

Seeing as how we percieve the world through our senses we are open to misconception by our senses....vulernable to false stimulus....logic is then ultimetly born through us through observation. Method of actions that are most efficient and sensible in a given situation.....also the most sensible form of thought but those methods could have taken birth under false stimulus.

So can logic be faulty? or it isn't logic if it is? Isn't logic created and decided by its practitioner who, ultimetly, is limited by his/her senses? Then isn't he/her at risk of faulty logic?

Or

Like Math, logic exists but it must be found and given roles and symbols like math....it must be named and labeled?

 

[Gonz]

Pure logic is infallible. Too bad beings with emotions fuck it up.

 

[IDLEchild]

Pure logic is infallible. Too bad beings with emotions fuck it up.

Where does Pure logic stem from? Nature or the mind?

 

[Gonz]

The mind.
Nature is ever changing & can be illogical. (why is there advanced life on the poles)

Pure logic takes into account only facts. No emotion to interfere with the best solution.

 

[Dave]

Nature is ever changing & can be illogical. (why is there advanced life on the poles)

nothing illogical about that. life found a niche and filled it. thats logical.

 

[MrBishop]

The mind amd our perception is tinged by our prior experiences and our limits in interpretation. Logic is meant to be a set of checks and balances to act as ombudsman to our skewed views.

The problem is that there are no 'laws' when it comes to how things must be interpreted...it's too volatile in that it's constantly evolving as we age, or as things happen or do not happen to us.

*Sorry that I took so long in responding BCD, I like the topic idea, but have been drawn away by other trivialities and other not-so-trivial threads.*

 

[chcr]

Logic can be a useful tool, but infallible? Anything we do is colored by our perceptions, how could it be otherwise (this includes mathematics, BCD)? At least until our understanding of the universe is complete. then, what about other universes? Most people misapply logic anyway.

 

[IDLEchild]

The mind amd our perception is tinged by our prior experiences and our limits in interpretation. Logic is meant to be a set of checks and balances to act as ombudsman to our skewed views.

The problem is that there are no 'laws' when it comes to how things must be interpreted...it's too volatile in that it's constantly evolving as we age, or as things happen or do not happen to us.

This is along the lines of what i had in mind.

Logic can be a useful tool, but infallible? Anything we do is colored by our perceptions, how could it be otherwise (this includes mathematics, BCD)? At least until our understanding of the universe is complete. then, what about other universes? Most people misapply logic anyway

and this too...

then, what about other universes? Most people misapply logic anyway

This is more of an assumption then an absolute thing. Other universes are still theories and we do not know enough to logically make their existence conclusive.

Nature is ever changing & can be illogical. (why is there advanced life on the poles)

I disagree. I find math and Nature to be quite possibly perfect and they are intertwined more deeply then we know and we have yet to discover more connections. Nature could be discribed purely through math.

 

[freako104]

logic is flawed as it is a human concept. i say that because we go with what we understand and analyse it as best we can. logic is the analysation.

 

[chcr]

This is more of an assumption then an absolute thing. Other universes are still theories and we do not know enough to logically make their existence conclusive.

True enough. String theory suggests the possibility, but it also requires 10 dimensions, and I can only find 4.

As I said, maybe when we understand the universe completely (if we ever do), logic will be infallible. Maybe.

 

[IDLEchild]

True enough. String theory suggests the possibility, but it also requires 10 dimensions, and I can only find 4.

As I said, maybe when we understand the universe completely (if we ever do), logic will be infallible. Maybe.

Well the others are helping to shape the universe around you by giving the strings their shape and vibration characteristics.......its hard to notice someone 100 billion times smaller than an atom.

and who says there are only 10......what about 30...26....15

string theory comes in all flavors for your pleasure.

 

[joejive]

An interesting topic.

Is logic not just a word that attempts to define the process whereby a given result is anticipated?

I believe that logic is dynamic, not static. It is a product of the human mind, and as such, evolves as we evolve.

It was not too long ago that the earth was considered flat. It was logical to assume that if you dissapeared over the ocean horizon, you would fall off the earth. This was borne out by the fact that these poor sods did not indeed come back. Hence that logic was valid for the understanding of that time.

Mathematics is logical in so much that we all adhere to the accepted principle that 2 follows 1 etc. All mathematics can be broken down into any number of steps of addition, exactly as a computer does.

In order to survive in our universe we need to find consistency, hence the application of logic.

As new concepts unfurl before us, our logic will change accordingly.

Concepts such as God, spirits, things travelling faster than the spead of light, X dimensional universes etc, will challenge our ability to apply logic to them.

 

[Sleeping Giant]

If logic were pure, would not it be realized that there is no point to life or existence?

What I do or don't do may have an effect on other people, so, logically, it can be concluded that it is in the best interest for others if I things that are beneficial to others. Ultimately, we are either happy or not happy in life, and this is substantially determined to the things that happen to us, which are controlled largely by other people. In other words, other people have a large effect on whether or not we are happy in life. But wait a minute, what difference does it actually make if I'm happy? It matters to me, but it doesn't actually change anything. I'm still going to die, the world will eventually end, the universe will eventually end, and when it's all over, whether or not I was happy will have made absolutely no difference whatsoever. So why bother? On the universal scale, nobody's life has any significance at all. Thus, it seems to me that it's possible to conclude that all life and all existence is possible.

But on the other logical hand, perhaps one could say that we do not live or exist on a universal scale, thus it is incorrect to judge ourselves on that scale. By my own previous argument, on a more local, more personal scale, there IS a point to life, and thus one should attempt to live it well. One could also logically surmise that Life simply exists, so since it's there, we may as well make the most of it. One could further logically surmise that, if life everywhere continues to allow itself to thrive that somebody, somewhere, someday, might somehow figure out finally how to truly make a difference on a universal scale, thus rendering my earlier argument invalid.

I wonder what is signified by the fact that it is possibe to construct two seemingly logical arguments that directly contradict each other. Perhaps it is that logic is not yet pure for us.

It is equally possible that when I recover from my current sleep-deprived status, I will review this post and say to myself, "What the FUCK was going on inside my head?!"

 

[A.B.Normal]

 

[IDLEchild]

Is logic not just a word that attempts to define the process whereby a given result is anticipated?

Well everything must be given a label to accomadate its existence in the human tongue.

I believe that logic is dynamic, not static. It is a product of the human mind, and as such, evolves as we evolve.

So it is set of processes and applications based on facts observed by us? purely based on facts and direct observations? So it stands to be faulty then?

In order to survive in our universe we need to find consistency, hence the application of logic.

Excellent point.

Concepts such as God, spirits, things travelling faster than the spead of light, X dimensional universes etc, will challenge our ability to apply logic to them.

CHCR made a point simliar to this. I agree, so far this still lingers in the realm of science fiction and fantasy. It is interesting to think how philosophy and religion...hell even how all of humanity will change after discovery of all of these of even one of these.

If logic were pure, would not it be realized that there is no point to life or existence?

We can not discern the meaning of life yet so like god and aliens the meaning of life has t obe excluded from all facets of logic for now...don't you think?

 

[Gonz]

It was not too long ago that the earth was considered flat.

Back to logic. It was there, in front of us all along. The answer. It only required logic to see the truth.

 

[chcr]

Back to logic. It was there, in front of us all along. The answer. It only required logic to see the truth.

Logic says the world is flat until you gain the ability to measure accurately and the mathematics to apply such measurements. Note that the greeks understood the world was a sphere 2000 years before Columbus, BTW.

Of course, some of us know the world is a disc riding on the backs of four giant elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle.

 

[Luis G]

Eratostenes was a genious.

 

[freako104]

Logic says the world is flat until you gain the ability to measure accurately and the mathematics to apply such measurements. Note that the greeks understood the world was a sphere 2000 years before Columbus, BTW.

Of course, some of us know the world is a disc riding on the backs of four giant elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle.

your a fan of Terry Pratchett arent you.

 

[chcr]

your a fan of Terry Pratchett arent you.

I want to be a wizzard (better than Rincewind though).