NationStates Jolt Archive

Yay another science versus religion debate.

Look:

Not everything is logical, in fact the logic behind logic has always seemed flawed to me.

Whether or not god exists is a matter of faith and there is no way that religion or science can prove the other wrong and therefore win this supposed war they have going on.

Bullets solve problems faster than stupid debates.

[ModEdit]Thread split from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548599).

Not everything is logical, in fact the logic behind logic has always seemed flawed to me.How so? Logic has no mystical parts.

How so? Logic has no mystical parts.

Because to think logically you have to assume that everything is totally linear like a mathmatical equation.

Not everything is logical, in fact the logic behind logic has always seemed flawed to me.

What exactly do you mean when you say "logic"? I get the feeling we're not on the same page.

Because to think logically you have to assume that everything is totally linear like a mathmatical equation.??

It has been my experiance that those who think using only logic enevitably end up coming to some amazingly simple breakthrough that is so totally wrong its farsicle, simply because they ignored the key fundamental of reality when it disagrees with logic.

It has been my experiance that those who think using only logic enevitably end up coming to some amazingly simple breakthrough that is so totally wrong its farsicle, simply because they ignored the key fundamental of reality when it disagrees with logic.

Well i don't really do well with logic because my logic is often different from another persons.
I think logic is good for breaking down an argument into it's basic premises and conclusion, and pointing out the flaws, but it's difficult to use it to actually PROVE anything.
As it's often the case when given a little argument to break down half the people in my class have different answers to the teacher, even he's not totally convinced by logic.

It has been my experiance that those who think using only logic enevitably end up coming to some amazingly simple breakthrough that is so totally wrong its farsicle, simply because they ignored the key fundamental of reality when it disagrees with logic.

what exactly disagrees with logic?

Well i don't really do well with logic because my logic is often different from another persons.
I think logic is good for breaking down an argument into it's basic premises and conclusion, and pointing out the flaws, but it's difficult to use it to actually PROVE anything.
As it's often the case when given a little argument to break down half the people in my class have different answers to the teacher, even he's not totally convinced by logic.

Basically I'm saying I don't trust o logic much, sometimes instincts or faith can suffice just as well. Totally trusting to logic like many do only leads to problems. I was trying to sound witty and seemed to have epic failed that.. RL distractions.

reality does not disagree with logic. what are you talking about?

I'm saying that sometimes logic disagrees with reality. Not vise versa, pay attention in class :p

Basically I'm saying I don't trust o logic much, sometimes instincts or faith can suffice just as well. Totally trusting to logic like many do only leads to problems. I was trying to sound witty and seemed to have epic failed that.. RL distractions.

I know i was agreeing with you, and giving my own example as proof of this.
Also Logic doesn't really work in everyday life, there are some actions that we do that are illogical, e.g. Using Logic to decide if you want to buy a chocolate bar or an apple would make it difficult to choose. Using Logic to decide if you want to fall in love with someone doesn't really work.

Most people don't say, "I fell in love with my husband because he was the logical choice at the time to bring in enough money for future children", as love isn't really based on logic, neither is culture yet both are important for feeling part of a group of people and to progress or move on.

I'm saying that sometimes logic disagrees with reality.

how so? examples?

It has been my experiance that those who think using only logic enevitably end up coming to some amazingly simple breakthrough that is so totally wrong its farsicle, simply because they ignored the key fundamental of reality when it disagrees with logic.reality does not disagree with logic. what are you talking about?

I'm saying that sometimes logic disagrees with reality. Not vise versa, pay attention in class :pExamples? :rolleyes:

how so? examples?

test case - Principle of Explosion - From a contradiction anything follows.

Let's say that Texas has a law that says a person cannot have wirecutters in their possession. It also has a law that says a person can have any tool (barring weapons) in their possession.

There's a contradiction in Texas law. Does it follow that sex toys are legal so long as you're using them on animals? Does it follow that the recreational use of PCP is legal?

Examples? :rolleyes:

Love in other people or partners.
Culture, music, computer games.
Wars aren't logical.
Comedians aren't logical.
everyday choices made aren't logical e.g. choosing what sort of food you should eat, should you be a vegetarian? Or eat food that's local to you? Both?
Many religions are not logical yet lots of people follow them, and make them.
Humans aren't logical at all.

Love in other people or partners.
Culture, music, computer games.
Wars aren't logical.
Comedians aren't logical.
everyday choices made aren't logical e.g. choosing what sort of food you should eat, should you be a vegetarian? Or eat food that's local to you? Both?
Many religions are not logical yet lots of people follow them, and make them.
Humans aren't logical at all.You seem to confuse human behavior with logic. And you name things that are not even supposed to contain logic.

Now can I please have examples of reality disagreeing with logic. Maybe out of the area of physics?

No matter how logical something is, no matter how easy a solution is, or a goal can be achieved reality will often times disregard logic altogether and do its own damn thing. The only time logic ever really works is in mathmatics, long and short thats what I ws trying to say. In the end its as insubstantial as faith and niether one will ever be able to overcome the other.

The logic behind logic is everything has a logical solution if you just take the time to discover it, its rubbish.

Now I need to get home, work shift is over. If you still don't understand oh well, made sense to me and in my current mood its all that matters.

test case - Principle of Explosion - From a contradiction anything follows.

Let's say that Texas has a law that says a person cannot have wirecutters in their possession. It also has a law that says a person can have any tool (barring weapons) in their possession.

There's a contradiction in Texas law. Does it follow that sex toys are legal so long as you're using them on animals? Does it follow that the recreational use of PCP is legal?

well played. of course, while anything does follow from contradictory laws, it really means that things are legal and illegal at the whim of those with the power to punish you.

Love in other people or partners.
Culture, music, computer games.
Wars aren't logical.
Comedians aren't logical.
everyday choices made aren't logical e.g. choosing what sort of food you should eat, should you be a vegetarian? Or eat food that's local to you? Both?
Many religions are not logical yet lots of people follow them, and make them.
Humans aren't logical at all.

i think you are using 'logic' in a weird sense. logic is about the relation between premises and conclusions.

how so? examples?

Examples?
Many logical paradoxes suggest taking action that would seem rather foolish in real life. For example, the Voting Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox).

Following on from that example, a huge amount of rational choice theory, game theory, etc., suggest logical conclusions which simply don’t pan out in reality.

On top of all this, there’s quite a few phrases in ‘everyday’ language that are extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to express in predicate logic.

There we go. A nice clean separate thread for discussion.

logic, like pie, is only as good as what you put into it. technique can only go so far if you are making a pie with rotten apples.

logic isnt an end to itself. it is a tool of debate and decision making. the answer it will lead you to cannot be correct if you started with "rotten apples".

reality does not disagree with logic. what are you talking about?

Look at quantum physics and then say that.

You seem to confuse human behavior with logic. And you name things that are not even supposed to contain logic.

Now can I please have examples of reality disagreeing with logic. Maybe out of the area of physics?

Upon reflection, that has some odd implications. Do you not believe that human behavior is part of reality? Are only some types of real things explainable in logical terms?

Yay another science versus religion debate.

Look:

Not everything is logical, in fact the logic behind logic has always seemed flawed to me.

Whether or not god exists is a matter of faith and there is no way that religion or science can prove the other wrong and therefore win this supposed war they have going on.

Bullets solve problems faster than stupid debates.

[ModEdit]Thread split from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548599).

There's a difference between logic and science. Science doesn't necessarily have to seem logical, it just has to be observable and repeatable.

Look at quantum physics and then say that.

are you think quantum indeterminacy or just the general weirdness factor?

Many logical paradoxes suggest taking action that would seem rather foolish in real life. For example, the Voting Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox).

Following on from that example, a huge amount of rational choice theory, game theory, etc., suggest logical conclusions which simply don’t pan out in reality.

ah, but this seems likely to be a difference in premises, rather than in inference

On top of all this, there’s quite a few phrases in ‘everyday’ language that are extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to express in predicate logic.

and this is perhaps a problem with our formalization techniques

In my view, logic is a way of structuring one's thoughts so that they align with reality. Things like cause and effect and so on are necessary, logical steps that we think through in our brains so that if we end up trying to do something we have some valid expectation of what's going to happen.

As such logic also requires some sort of input. If we stayed in a dark room our entire lives and tried to use logic to work out the world we wouldn't get very far. Hence we need inputs - empirical observations, if you will. Once you have them, you can apply logic.

Human behaviour is of course not logical a lot of the time. Part of that is because of the fact that we are animals and often heavily influenced by the chemicals that are meant to allow us to keep our DNA going. And another part is that applying logic requires hard work sometimes, and people just can't be bothered.

But as far as understanding laws of physics or the nature of the universe are concerned, and thus also concerning questions about the existence of a god, logic is the only way we can gather most knowledge. We observe, and we extrapolate from what we observe. If we weren't able to do that and exclude the possibility of contradictions, we wouldn't be able to learn anything. So to say that God exists because logic doesn't apply is to say that there are no Black Holes - afterall, we've never actually observed one.

But as far as understanding laws of physics or the nature of the universe are concerned, and thus also concerning questions about the existence of a god, logic is the only way we can gather most knowledge. We observe, and we extrapolate from what we observe. If we weren't able to do that and exclude the possibility of contradictions, we wouldn't be able to learn anything. So to say that God exists because logic doesn't apply is to say that there are no Black Holes - afterall, we've never actually observed one.

Have you actually encountered someone trying to prove that God exists by saying that logic doesn't apply? I've seen it used in an effort to counter arguments that God does not exist, but never as a proof.

Have you actually encountered someone trying to prove that God exists by saying that logic doesn't apply? I've seen it used in an effort to counter arguments that God does not exist, but never as a proof.
Well, just the simple "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it"-question. So I don't question the existence of God as such, I question the existence of an omnipotent being.

The most heard answer is some version "logic doesn't apply to God", with "that's not what omnipotence means" running in second.

Well, just the simple "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it"-question. So I don't question the existence of God as such, I question the existence of an omnipotent being.

The most heard answer is some version "logic doesn't apply to God", with "that's not what omnipotence means" running in second.

Yeah, that's been my experience too.

I'm the only one I know who actually answers that question by saying, "Yes."

Really easy way to end this debate, we'll ask the master of logic himself...

Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green!

Thank you Mr. Spock, anything else?

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
Welp, that settles it. The Vulcan has spoken. :p

Really easy way to end this debate, we'll ask the master of logic himself...

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

I've long found that to be true.

Folks who try to peddle logic to me might as well be trying to sell a foundation to someone who already has a home.

what exactly disagrees with logic?

Whole swathes of life do. For starters love, the way we logicly know we should treat others vs the way we actualy do.

Whole swathes of life do. For starters love, the way we logicly know we should treat others vs the way we actualy do.There is very little logical about "the way we logicly know we should treat others". Not in the mathematical sense of logic, in any case.

It is difficult to apply logic properly to real settings, because it is difficult to know what rules actually apply. Whenever logic doesn't seem to apply, it's because any of a million implicit assumptions may be false.
Logic is much more successful in places where you model parts of the world, and you can use the rules of the model (which should be clearly defined, in contrast to the rules of reality). Then you can derive consequences that should be true in the model, and then you can test whether the model corresponds, in that respect, to reality. Even if it doesn't, the model might still be useful (e.g. newtonian physics), but it might be worth looking for a better one.

There is very little logical about "the way we logicly know we should treat others". Not in the mathematical sense of logic, in any case.

It is difficult to apply logic properly to real settings, because it is difficult to know what rules actually apply. Whenever logic doesn't seem to apply, it's because any of a million implicit assumptions may be false.
Logic is much more successful in places where you model parts of the world, and you can use the rules of the model (which should be clearly defined, in contrast to the rules of reality). Then you can derive consequences that should be true in the model, and then you can test whether the model corresponds, in that respect, to reality. Even if it doesn't, the model might still be useful (e.g. newtonian physics), but it might be worth looking for a better one.

Well first off, what do you mean by the 'mathematical sense of logic'?

Secondly when we use logic as a tool for finding what is ethicaly correct(as we surly do) then just go and throw qall of our findings out of the window and do what we feel like anyway, then that is surly an ilogical act?

Well first off, what do you mean by the 'mathematical sense of logic'?That there is an argument made based on premises and inference rules leading to a conclusion. Most people throw the word 'logic' around very informally, almost as a synonym for obvious or natural.

Secondly when we use logic as a tool for finding what is ethicaly correct(as we surly do)I tend to have my reservation about whether it's even possible. A common saying in ethics is "you can't derive ought from is"; without assuming moral axioms, you can't arrive at moral conclusions. So there is a problem with grounding ethics.
(Not every philosopher of ethics would agree, though; some think you can "derive ought from is")

I suppose if you are already working within an ethical framework, this isn't a problem. You can then use logic to determine what is ethical within that framework (rather than in a more objective sense).
then just go and throw all of our findings out of the window and do what we feel like anyway, then that is surly an ilogical act?Under the common-sense notion of logic yes. But there's the unspoken premise in it that people act on their (ethical) findings; it assumes people are rational. Since that premise is broken, it doesn't conflict with logic; the model for humans is just wrong.
And there's actually a good case to be made, on evolutionary and other grounds, that people should (sometimes, even often) act irrationally (in short it's effective, more so than deliberating every action for hours to find an optimal solution long after you should have acted. The long version takes several (shelves of) books, mind you.)

Because to think logically you have to assume that everything is totally linear like a mathmatical equation.

No, you have to be making your best effort to APPROACH things in a linear and reasonable fashion, even if some of the factors involved seem unreasonable.

Not everything is logical, in fact the logic behind logic has always seemed flawed to me.

Yeah... but I still have faith in Logic. I can't prove Logic is better... It's just a gut feeling.

Yeah... but I still have faith in Logic. I can't prove Logic is better... It's just a gut feeling.

http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gershon/EscherForReal/MoebiusAnt.gif

http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gershon/EscherForReal/MoebiusAnt.gif

I've only used Moebius strips on flies. Do they work on ants?


This thread reminded me of thread a couple years back.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459264

Is SaintB any relation to Saint Curie?

what isn't linear is statistical. more of it statistical then linear anyway.
more is not known then is too.
that we can experience things we don't even have to pretend to know in order to is not an argument against logic, but it is one against pretending to know what is not known.

fanatics like to pretend counterintuitive = illogical. this is an illogical pretention.

=^^=
.../\...

I've only used Moebius strips on flies. Do they work on ants?
You could put wings on 'em ...


This thread reminded me of thread a couple years back.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459264

Is SaintB any relation to Saint Curie?

Ooh, good choice!
I don't think they're the same entity, though.

You could put wings on 'em ...

Everybody knows the Klein bottle is best for ants.

Fuck logic. Emotion wins most of the time.