First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
What is logic/reason/rational thought? how can you prove that?
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/27/10 , edited 1/27/10
STOP! note to mods-There is one thread on logic in the general forum- this one is meant to be more indept, philosophical, and just down right better B).And i will not get confused with physics

Logic/rational/reason...what r they? I have looked at the dictionary, serveral. And they r all defined as logic/rational/reasoning- which doesnt say anything.

When you give a definition of what you believe to be logic,ect, you need to justify it without relying on logic/rational/reason-that's circular "logic" (if such a thing exist). You have to prove logic exist by some outside source or method which justifies your assumptions. And if you cant justify it, does that mean u reached an "illogical" assumtion on determining what logic is? Or are we just assuming logic to exists?

I personaly have no idea what logic/reasoning/rational is. And even if i did i wouldnt have proof of it.Or justification. So i believe they r abstract,subjective, or non existent.

What criteria do we even use to define and measure reason? and how do we define and measure that criteria? or can we?

Attempt to define logic,ect. show evidence for that attempt and explain the "reasoning" you used to reach that point.peace over war
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/27/10
Reasoning is to form conclusions from inferences or judgments based on ideals or evidence.


Now Reasoning Rationally would be the act or process of drawing conclusions from facts, or evidence. Wile Reasoning can be based on ideals only this is more known as a conjecture.
In my logical opinion logic is the science of gathering together and studding of evidence to create an educated estimation of reality. (my own words)


4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/27/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Reasoning is to form conclusions from inferences or judgments based on ideals or evidence.


Now Reasoning Rationally would be the act or process of drawing conclusions from facts, or evidence. Wile Reasoning can be based on ideals only this is more known as a conjecture.
In my logical opinion logic is the science of gathering together and studding of evidence to create an educated estimation of reality. (my own words)




But here in lies is the problem- how do we determine reality? and with what facts and evidence? how do we find these facts/evidences? and when we find them,how do we determine them to be facts? do we need facts to prove the facts themselves? and does it matter what type of conclusions we draw?

I could see a rock in front of me, based on that i could assume the rock does or doesnt exist.-could either chioce be rational reasoning drawn from conclusions of the rock?

you said "Reasoning is to form conclusions from inferences or judgments based on ideals or evidence."

which means the exact same thing as "Now Reasoning Rationally would be the act or process of drawing conclusions from facts, or evidence"- you

each definition has "conclusions drawn from evidence".

So rational=rational reasoning? therefore rational=reasoning?


"Reasoning can be based on ideals only this is more known as a conjecture. "

But isnt all the knowlege human's aquired conjecture? just guesses and assumptions based on some idea?And from those guesses we found "evidence" based on more guesses and we somehow contruct "thoeries" from this and "laws"... all based on a guess called "rational/logic/reasoning"-which there r no universal rules or methods to even begin "rationalizing" ration/logic/reasoning.


"In my logical opinion logic is the science of gathering together and studding of evidence to create an educated estimation of reality."

so in an opinion (guess) of logic we study evidence (based on what? another guess?) to create (make up from 2 guesses?) an educated (educated in what? guesses?) estimation (another guess) of reality. And i suppose we just assume reality based on 5 guesses?

So we guess the definition of logic, guessing it exist, to gather guesses to guess an educated guess and guess it to be reality?

This is just assumptions upon assumptions to create more assumptions based on assumed assumptions to asume an asumed reality.

Were does it all begin? How do we know what we know? Is it possible to know anything in the first place? And what do we justify this knowlege with? Where or what is the evidence for our evidences? (and no, im not high :happy:) peace over war
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/20/11 , edited 6/20/11
Logical/Rational Reasoning is that which is founded upon a priori deductive reasoning. That is, there is a general rule from which we draw our conclusion, which is a subset of that rule. All thoughts that fall into this deductive pattern is call 'Logical' or 'Rational'. What DarkPhoenix refers to is not 'Rational'/'Logical' thought, but 'Empirical Reasoning' that is, inductive a posteriori reasoning, from which a specific instance is used to generate a general principle.
Posted 6/20/11
For some people, there is no reasoning. They do what comes to them naturally, and no school of thought really has any influence on them. My stance on logic is critical thinking towards a beneficial outcome, which takes prior education on a subject and rationalization. Out of that, you find the reason to do something.
113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/11
To define something that is logical, one would need rules of inference created from the discourse of Logicians. Rules of inferences sets the standard in which statements can be manipulated. Modus ponens, in a basic form, is "If p implies q, and p is true, then q will be true too." (If a tomato is red, then it's ripe. A tomato is red. Therefore it's ripe.) Although it seems like elementary talk, we need simple examples to define such a grand term like "logic". If this is the form of logic that needs definition, then we can simply refer to the rules of inference and all the pretty things which can be done with those rules to illustrate what logic is.

But maybe that doesn't satisfy the masses...then...

Look to the dictionary: The science or art of reasoning pure thought. (paraphrased)

If you're still not satisfied...damn, you're picky. JK!!!JK!!!

The problem might lay in what is logic. Is it a science or an art? We can see how it is a science simply by looking into Albert Einstein's work. However, we can do the same to say it is an art by looking at Shakespeare's work. Whether it's one or the other, I do not know. I do think, though, that logic rests on the same ground as mathematics, which is an art, because it isn't subject to the scientific method. As for my justification of the former sentence: if something is defined by it's process, and the scientific method is a process, then logic is not defined by the scientific method therefore logic is an art.
Posted 7/4/11 , edited 7/4/11

Narfanator wrote:

To define something that is logical, one would need rules of inference created from the discourse of Logicians. Rules of inferences sets the standard in which statements can be manipulated. Modus ponens, in a basic form, is "If p implies q, and p is true, then q will be true too." (If a tomato is red, then it's ripe. A tomato is red. Therefore it's ripe.) Although it seems like elementary talk, we need simple examples to define such a grand term like "logic". If this is the form of logic that needs definition, then we can simply refer to the rules of inference and all the pretty things which can be done with those rules to illustrate what logic is.

But maybe that doesn't satisfy the masses...then...

Look to the dictionary: The science or art of reasoning pure thought. (paraphrased)

If you're still not satisfied...damn, you're picky. JK!!!JK!!!

The problem might lay in what is logic. Is it a science or an art? We can see how it is a science simply by looking into Albert Einstein's work. However, we can do the same to say it is an art by looking at Shakespeare's work. Whether it's one or the other, I do not know. I do think, though, that logic rests on the same ground as mathematics, which is an art, because it isn't subject to the scientific method. As for my justification of the former sentence: if something is defined by it's process, and the scientific method is a process, then logic is not defined by the scientific method therefore logic is an art.
However, in order to master the art of logic, one has to conduct experiments with it, and that's within the process of experimental science. While theoretical science such as quantum physics is pure mathematics. When it could very well be our evolution that we become to appreciate art, because "we find beauty in something done well(citation)". Not because how as individuals we subjectively perceive something is art. In other words, to define "A is A" through the law of non-contradiction is but the first step of logical thinking, it's as simple as looking up a word in a dictionary.

But in fact logical thinking is hard for most human beings, because logic has no need of entertainment. While emotional feeling like frustration is quite frankly unknown by logic. Moreover, through multidisciplinary studies of anthropology, sociology, and psychology, there are various human cognitive limitations and biases that simply defy logic. For examples:

1)Our tendency to be predisposed copies.
2)Our false-positive belief engine called patternicity, which gives us our superstitions
3)Our bias towards social conformity.
4)Our rather easily distorted perception of security.

Seriously, there's no logic behind the creation of monetary incentive whatsoever. However we keep rationalizing it because of just such biases.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/18/11

Narfanator wrote:

To define something that is logical, one would need rules of inference created from the discourse of Logicians. Rules of inferences sets the standard in which statements can be manipulated. Modus ponens, in a basic form, is "If p implies q, and p is true, then q will be true too." (If a tomato is red, then it's ripe. A tomato is red. Therefore it's ripe.) Although it seems like elementary talk, we need simple examples to define such a grand term like "logic". If this is the form of logic that needs definition, then we can simply refer to the rules of inference and all the pretty things which can be done with those rules to illustrate what logic is.

But maybe that doesn't satisfy the masses...then...

Look to the dictionary: The science or art of reasoning pure thought. (paraphrased)

If you're still not satisfied...damn, you're picky. JK!!!JK!!!

The problem might lay in what is logic. Is it a science or an art? We can see how it is a science simply by looking into Albert Einstein's work. However, we can do the same to say it is an art by looking at Shakespeare's work. Whether it's one or the other, I do not know. I do think, though, that logic rests on the same ground as mathematics, which is an art, because it isn't subject to the scientific method. As for my justification of the former sentence: if something is defined by it's process, and the scientific method is a process, then logic is not defined by the scientific method therefore logic is an art.



Well, two point of dissent, firstly, you falsely implies that it can only be one or the other without considering the possibility of something being both- a science and an art. First, you would have to define what you mean by 'science'- if you look at the second definition provided by Merriam-Webster, you would find that it would fit snugly into that definition of science, that is 'a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study', along with their definition of 'art'- 'skill acquired by experience, study, or observation' or 'Learning, Scholarship'. Secondly, how is Shakespeare's work 'Logical', 'Reasoning', or 'Rational'? It is a creative piece- an extremely and superlatively creative piece, but a creative piece none the less.
113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/11

However, in order to master the art of logic, one has to conduct experiments with it, and that's within the process of experimental science.


I don't like to to think that mastery of an art should go through an experimental process as perceived by science. It does however, give a great form of instantiation which could be used by other people, but I don't think logic in it's artistic sense can be used rationally. "Logic not being rational? You crazy homez." Now bare with me for just a moment. Logic has it's use of getting somewhere, like defining how A leads to B which leads to C, and it's has it's use of getting nowhere like A is A, but rational taken from A to B can have multiple points of reason depending on A and B are.

Sooo...let's take the keyboard in front of you as point A and the monitor as point B. There are ton of steps that a person can rationally take in order to define the process at hand i.e when I press a key on the keyboard, a letter pops up on the screen, or the electrical impulses from the interaction occurring on the keyboard connects circuits that will eventually display a letter on the monitor. We can further develop more rationale giving the correct term for each computer part the signal, from the keyboard to the monitor, has to go through. Depending on which form of explanation is chosen to define what rationale is being used to define point A to B gives logic a more artistic feel. As such, emotions don't necessarily defy logic, it's simply the path chosen in rationale that gives the wrong conclusion for which act produced which feeling. Neuro-science may hold the key to defining such path though...it may be only a matter of time.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/11
If you can prove your point with pure mathematics to results/patterns - then it is pure logic.
113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/11 , edited 7/28/11
"Well, two point of dissent, firstly, you falsely implies that it can only be one or the other without considering the possibility of something being both- a science and an art."

I definitely agree that a systematic form of knowledge can be both a science and an art, but I like the two to be disassociated to make things less complicated. If we were to consider a lot of things both science and art, then we would muddy the waters a bit when trying to define a masterpieces of art and theoretical framework developed because I think it we would like to keep the genius of Einstein and that of PIcasso in different references but still call them both geniuses in their respective discourse.


"Secondly, how is Shakespeare's work 'Logical', 'Reasoning', or 'Rational'? It is a creative piece- an extremely and superlatively creative piece, but a creative piece none the less."

I completely agree that Shakespeare's work was very creative. Who else could develop phrases like "To catch a cold," but Shakespeare? Thing is, because he holds such creativity, there must be a structure involved in creating that creativity. He uses poetic structures like quatrains and couplets which have their own logical structure. That is, quatrains use for line stanzas while couplets have back to back lines and if Shakespeare uses such form of structure to develop a story that makes sense, then I think, at the very least, he has some rationale to his work.

Edit: I don't know how to quote passages so I used quotes...
12 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/11
Through one's experiences, one develops an array of observations of right and wrong, and what sort of things cause certain reactions. Logic is the ability to develop probable hypoyheses by using your particular set of experiences. Therefore, logic is unique to each person; what is logical for some is entirely illogical for others.
Proof of logic, is it's results rather than itself. If one uses logic to solve a problem, them that logic exists. If the problem is unsolved then logic is nonexistent in that particular scenario. For instance: say I were to attempt to open a drawer. By observing the features of said drawer (such as the handle) I could then deduce how to open it. If my method for opening the drawer were to work it would be proved logical. Having said that, if my method didn't work, then I had done something illogical.
Now having said this, I'm only fifteen and don't claim to understand the mysteries of the human mind. However that is, simply put, my opinion
Posted 7/30/11

RobertHayden wrote:

Through one's experiences, one develops an array of observations of right and wrong, and what sort of things cause certain reactions. Logic is the ability to develop probable hypoyheses by using your particular set of experiences. Therefore, logic is unique to each person; what is logical for some is entirely illogical for others.
Proof of logic, is it's results rather than itself. If one uses logic to solve a problem, them that logic exists. If the problem is unsolved then logic is nonexistent in that particular scenario. For instance: say I were to attempt to open a drawer. By observing the features of said drawer (such as the handle) I could then deduce how to open it. If my method for opening the drawer were to work it would be proved logical. Having said that, if my method didn't work, then I had done something illogical.
Now having said this, I'm only fifteen and don't claim to understand the mysteries of the human mind. However that is, simply put, my opinion
However, this process is often mistaken by humans' natural state of "predisposed copying". Where there's no deeper understandings of the situation, merely generalization based on superstitions.

So what I want to talk about today is belief. I want to believe, and you do too. And in fact, I think my thesis here is that belief is the natural state of things. It is the default option. We just believe. We believe all sorts of things. Belief is natural. Disbelief, skepticism, science, is not natural. It's more difficult. It's uncomfortable to not believe things. So like Fox Mulder on "X-Files," who wants to believe in UFOs? Well, we all do. And the reason for that is because we have a belief engine in our brains. Essentially, we are pattern-seeking primates. We connect the dots: A is connected to B; B is connected to C. And sometimes A really is connected to B. And that's called association learning.

We find patterns, we make those connections, whether it's Pavlov's dog here associating the sound of the bell with the food, and then he salivates to the sound of the bell, or whether it's a Skinnerian rat, in which he's having an association between his behavior and a reward for it, and therefore he repeats the behavior. In fact, what Skinner discovered is that, if you put a pigeon in a box like this, and he has to press one of these two keys, and he tries to figure out what the pattern is, and you give him a little reward in the hopper box there. If you just randomly assign rewards such that there is no pattern, they will figure out any kind of pattern. And whatever they were doing just before they got the reward, they repeat that particular pattern. Sometimes it was even spinning around twice counterclockwise, once clockwise and peck the key twice. And that's called superstition. And that, I'm afraid, we will always have with us.(citation)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/3/11

Narfanator wrote:

"Well, two point of dissent, firstly, you falsely implies that it can only be one or the other without considering the possibility of something being both- a science and an art."

I definitely agree that a systematic form of knowledge can be both a science and an art, but I like the two to be disassociated to make things less complicated. If we were to consider a lot of things both science and art, then we would muddy the waters a bit when trying to define a masterpieces of art and theoretical framework developed because I think it we would like to keep the genius of Einstein and that of PIcasso in different references but still call them both geniuses in their respective discourse.


"Secondly, how is Shakespeare's work 'Logical', 'Reasoning', or 'Rational'? It is a creative piece- an extremely and superlatively creative piece, but a creative piece none the less."

I completely agree that Shakespeare's work was very creative. Who else could develop phrases like "To catch a cold," but Shakespeare? Thing is, because he holds such creativity, there must be a structure involved in creating that creativity. He uses poetic structures like quatrains and couplets which have their own logical structure. That is, quatrains use for line stanzas while couplets have back to back lines and if Shakespeare uses such form of structure to develop a story that makes sense, then I think, at the very least, he has some rationale to his work.

Edit: I don't know how to quote passages so I used quotes...



I still stand by my dissent- everything can be thought of as an art- Einstein was a genius in the Scientific Arts, Picasso master of the Visual Arts.

Secondly, while he uses poetic structure- stanzas, quatrains, iambic pentameter, and all that- they are not so much 'logical' as they are 'functional'. 'Logic' exist outside of 'Form'- 'logic' does not need form and form does not need logic- there is no logic in most poetry, even if there is form, because 'logic' is the art of forming and justifying an idea, poetry, on the other hand, is to create beauty with words.
Posted 8/4/11 , edited 8/4/11

longfenglim wrote:


Narfanator wrote:

"Well, two point of dissent, firstly, you falsely implies that it can only be one or the other without considering the possibility of something being both- a science and an art."

I definitely agree that a systematic form of knowledge can be both a science and an art, but I like the two to be disassociated to make things less complicated. If we were to consider a lot of things both science and art, then we would muddy the waters a bit when trying to define a masterpieces of art and theoretical framework developed because I think it we would like to keep the genius of Einstein and that of PIcasso in different references but still call them both geniuses in their respective discourse.


"Secondly, how is Shakespeare's work 'Logical', 'Reasoning', or 'Rational'? It is a creative piece- an extremely and superlatively creative piece, but a creative piece none the less."

I completely agree that Shakespeare's work was very creative. Who else could develop phrases like "To catch a cold," but Shakespeare? Thing is, because he holds such creativity, there must be a structure involved in creating that creativity. He uses poetic structures like quatrains and couplets which have their own logical structure. That is, quatrains use for line stanzas while couplets have back to back lines and if Shakespeare uses such form of structure to develop a story that makes sense, then I think, at the very least, he has some rationale to his work.

Edit: I don't know how to quote passages so I used quotes...



I still stand by my dissent- everything can be thought of as an art- Einstein was a genius in the Scientific Arts, Picasso master of the Visual Arts.

Secondly, while he uses poetic structure- stanzas, quatrains, iambic pentameter, and all that- they are not so much 'logical' as they are 'functional'. 'Logic' exist outside of 'Form'- 'logic' does not need form and form does not need logic- there is no logic in most poetry, even if there is form, because 'logic' is the art of forming and justifying an idea, poetry, on the other hand, is to create beauty with words.


If one focuses purely on the beauty of words, there tends to be the thought of those words having the power to override logic. It may sway the beleaguered masses, but not the wills of the few critical thinkers.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.