Can we always trust logical reasoning?
I've read several arguments here on the forum where people come to logical conclusion like: "Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide." or "This proves that god exists" or Logical proof that the hard problem of consciousness is impossible to solve"
Is it possible that with solid premises and correct logical steps, we cannot always accept the conclusion?
Even in formal logical systems there are things that are not allowed, or you'll get into contradictions. In Math, division by zero is an example. If we assigned any number to the result of dividing by zero we'd run into contradictions
But this has broad implications. To avoid contradictions, we need to establish rules about what we are allowed to discuss. Thats interesting.
What about all these discussions in metaphysics & epistemology? Could it be that these topics cannot be addressed logically? Somebody must have said a few words about this already, I guess?
Is it possible that with solid premises and correct logical steps, we cannot always accept the conclusion?
Even in formal logical systems there are things that are not allowed, or you'll get into contradictions. In Math, division by zero is an example. If we assigned any number to the result of dividing by zero we'd run into contradictions
But this has broad implications. To avoid contradictions, we need to establish rules about what we are allowed to discuss. Thats interesting.
What about all these discussions in metaphysics & epistemology? Could it be that these topics cannot be addressed logically? Somebody must have said a few words about this already, I guess?
Comments (20)
Conclusions like "this proves that god exists" is not a conclusion out of a chain of logic, but a chain of logical fallacies.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
The reason why such discussions never ends in an objective and final conclusion is because they either consist of paradoxical conclusions, or we do not have enough understanding of physics or how our mind works to be able to conclude anything final, thus it becomes more a discussion around the premises and which argument has the most valid premises as they might sometime hint at the most likely probable conclusion.
And to counter-question; is there anything better than using logical reasoning for arriving at conclusions? In order to avoid biases and fallacies? If not using that, then what could possibly get closer to anything objective, classified as truth, or most probable? I tend to see these types of questioning of logical reasoning, using the fact that not everything can be summed up in a logical chain of reasoning down to a solid conclusion; to be some kind of evidence for logical reasoning not to be trusted.
In the end, it mostly looks like attempts by those who feel their opinions trumped by logic to try and dispel logic as a tool of thought and reasoning, and thereby give more validation to their illogical and just random opinions by somehow bringing down the logical arguments to some kind of pseudo-equality with the illogical ones.
All non-trivial logical premises ultimately involve empirical inferences made from observations of the real world. Given the obvious uncertainty associated with those observations, there are no solid premises in any kind of unconditional sense.
There are things you can know independent of the 'real' world.
"I am conscious" is one. Note that this is not an emperical inference. The knowing of "I am conscious" comes before the words "I am conscious". The difficulty lies in conveying this knowledge to somebody else.
In Math, you can state things as a premise and derive conclusions. "These are the numbers ... This is how we define addition ... therefore 1 + 1 = 2". We can be pretty sure about this conclusion. But even there, to convey this to somebody else seems to be non-trivial. As "I love sushi" told me recently: if you don't understand, you don't understand.
If we say "if 1) reality is determistic and 2) we have a free will, it follows 3) we exist outside reality". Where does this go wrong?
Of course my consciousness is an aspect of the real world that I know by observation.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I see two ways of looking at this. First, arithmetic is directly related to counting, a human activity involving observation and requiring learning. Second, looking deeper, there is scientific evidence that humans have an innate numerical ability. Very young babies seem to have an ability to understand quantity. I have been touting a book by Konrad Lorenz, "Behind the Mirror." In it, Lorenz claims that this kind of innate ability is a direct result of evolution. He even makes the point explicitly that, even though the ability is built in, ultimately it results from our and our ancestor's interactions with the world.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
This seems like a gigantic non-sequitur. What does this have to do with the discussion we are having? Besides that, your understanding of the determinism vs. free will issue is very different from mine. This is not the place to take that up.
This is presumably non-trivial. What empirical inference made from observation of the real world is involved?
Good question Mr. Hume. I'm not sure where it comes from. I'm not sure if it's something we figure out from seeing that certain things seem to recur in certain situations or if it's something more built in. But it certainly is justifiable based on observation and by the fact that our species continues... for now.
Guilty as charged.
If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered. So I do not pray. Therefore God exists.
I am sorry, I was not clear why I brought that in. I wasn't trying to dive into this argument, I used it as an example, an often-seen logical argumentation (although I made it a bit cartoonesc). I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer.
I don't agree. There is a conceptual understanding of "me" operating in the world. But the direct, first person realisation of being conscious precedes any other knowing, and is "absolute" in the sense that I don't need anything else for that.
When I wake up in the morning, I might not know where I am, but even searching my memory for that piece of information, I am conscious.
Also, if somebody was shouting at me: "you are not conscious, it is an illusion", what would that say? I would stil be conscious.
Here's my take. Neither of the premises is true. Neither is false. Whether reality is deterministic or we have free will can not be verified or falsified empirically.
This is an argument we have here all the time - the hard problem of consciousness. As I see it, there is no hard problem of consciousness.
Sometimes folk can get confused between real and imaginary; an architect imagines a house, and draws plans and images of it. If he has followed the logic of his trade, then a builder can build according to his plans and the real building will not fall down. This is the only way the magic can work - when people think straight and do what they say.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
The implicit premise is incompatibilism, which seems right to me even though it is not uncontroversial.
If there is an argument that we disagree with, and yet we cannot say why, should we throw out logic? No, probably not. Logic is just the study of what follows from something else. If (3) follows from (1) and (2) then the argument is logically valid. If a logical system says that a conclusion follows when that conclusion does not in fact follow, then the logical system is faulty, but nevertheless, its specific fault ultimately needs to be pointed out.
Note that even to reject a logical school requires logic. "If this logical school is correct then I must accept the conclusion; I cannot accept the conclusion; therefore this logical school is incorrect" (modus tollens).