The correct thing to do is 1; it's implied by a logical principle. However, practical difficulties arise. So, we have to choose between 2 and 3. Most opt for 2. As you can see, option 3 (circularity) is avoided as much as possible. It's the least preferred choice. — TheMadFool
Logic is not innate to the mind. We have to learn it. From where? From the external world. We learn the rules of logic by observing the world. Deductive logic works fine at the macroscopic level. In our everyday lives we never see violations of logical principles and deductive and inductive logic work well. — TheMadFool
I personally think that the relative fact that logic is capable of providing reproducible results is all you need to recognize the value of it. — MonfortS26
So I disagree with the notion that logic is an aspect of the external world. — MonfortS26
1. Continue ad infinitum
2. Agree on a starting point (axioms)
3. Enter a circularity
The correct thing to do is 1; it's impled by a logical principle. However, practical difficulties arise. So, we have to choose between 2 and 3. Most opt for 2. As you can see, option 3 (circularity) is avoided as much as possible. It's the least preferred choice. — TheMadFool
I think that logic is a better tool to place one's faith in than religion, but that is my opinion. — MonfortS26
That said, when we investigate logic itself, we find we're immediately involved in a circular argument. Simply put, we need proof that logic is the best mode of thinking but thinking this way presupposes that logic is the best mode of thinking. Note that we're looking for a deductive proof that logic is the best mode of thinking. — TheMadFool
So, the circularity concerns rationality, not logic. — TheMadFool
The logic I'm familiar with doesn't tolerate contradictions but some say contradictions are part of quantum physics. What should we do? Ignore real observation or change our logic? — TheMadFool
To get back to the problem of circularity of rationality the only thing we can say about being rational is that we learn it from the outside world. This breaks the circularity. We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool
We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool
I suggest that we don't really have to agree on a starting point. Indeed, the starting point is often invisible (taken for granted). Having to agree sounds like it involves reasoning from these otherwise invisible axioms. — dog
the axiomatic approach is a foundation of logic — TheMadFool
Maybe not. Natural deduction uses assumptions that can be introduced ad hoc, rather than axioms. — Banno
Of course it is. — Banno
1. Continue ad infinitum
2. Agree on a starting point (axioms)
3. Enter a circularity — TheMadFool
A varient on (2) would be to choose any arbitrary truth as a starting point. — Banno
Nope. Agree on an arbitrary starting point. If a contradiction arrises, go back and have another go. — Banno
n that case, it's just happenstance that some dreamed-up algorithm happens to fit reality. — gurugeorge
Just one final thought: it's unproblematic to think of logic as innate to some degree. — gurugeorge
Why not?
Also, where did "mustn't" come from? — Banno
Isn't it obvious then that our logic (its structure) must mirror the structure of reality itself? I don't think this is "just happenstance". — TheMadFool
I don't see why. Logic is just bunches of symbols matched up according to rules. It's a game.
If every now and then a logical system is useful, so much the better. — Banno
That said, when we investigate logic itself, we find we're immediately involved in a circular argument. Simply put, we need proof that logic is the best mode of thinking but thinking this way presupposes that logic is the best mode of thinking. Note that we're looking for a deductive proof that logic is the best mode of thinking. — TheMadFool
So, how does one get out of this predicament, The Fallacy of Logic?
Logic is not innate to the mind. We have to learn it. From where? From the external world. We learn the rules of logic by observing the world. Deductive logic works fine at the macroscopic level. In our everyday lives we never see violations of logical principles and deductive and inductive logic work well.
I've heard that this isn't the case at the quantum level. I believe there are many situations where contradictions (a no-no in logic) arise. For such experiences we need a different kind of logic - something that accomodates the ''strange'' behavior of quantum objects.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.