2. is unacceptable because P is possible through mere coincidence. — TheMadFool

True. It's also true that "If its predictions are accurate, then logic is justified" sounds more like a definition than anything else, that it says this is what we mean by "justified". Your syllogism, seen that way, is just figuring out whether the word "justified", so defined, applies to logic. And it does, despite the possibility that every test of logic has succeeded by the merest coincidence rather than because This Is How The World Is. Justification is for us, isn't it? Or were you thinking of some other meaning for "justification"?

It's also true that "If its predictions are accurate, then logic is justified" sounds more like a definition than anything else — Srap Tasmaner

By "justification" I mean sufficient reason to merit belief.

As you already know this basic principle (must have reason to believe in something) leads to a circularity when it comes to logic.

Question 1: Why believe in logic? Asking for justification for logic i.e. why should we believe logic is the correct method of thinking.

Any attempt to answer the question would begin with "BECAUSE..." and that is, obviously, presupposing logic is the correct method of thinking.

How do we escape this circularity. I suggested a syllogism and, as you have correctly pointed out, that is insufficient. I revisited the notion of justification for logic and I think the sound argument is given below:

L = Logic is justified
P = MANY or MOST or preferably ALL predictions of logic come true

Argument A
1. P -> L
2. P
Therefore
3. L

The premise 1 is justified because it is highly unlikely that ALL predictions of logic coming true by mere chance.

What do you think?

Well, yeah, it would be quite a coincidence. I didn't see the need to labor the point. What you say here is what I was saying, so long as you take "tends to successfully predict" as the meaning of "justified". I think you probably should, because what else is there?

I don't know that you can make much more of this.

I don't know that you can make much more of this. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm just happy I came up with a sound argument that justifies logic (using logic).

Some creative people function excellently while tending to be largely irrational. Isn't that right MJ and Kanye? — Greta

I don't know who MJ is, but are you able to rationalize your mention of Kanye?

One main value of reason is as a means to communicate creative intuitions with others. In engineering school, during exams, one is not allowed to write the answer to a numerical answer question, without showing how you reached your conclusion. Reason is the bridge between the question and the answer, with the answer sometimes there, before the bridge. The professor asks the student to build a logical bridge and not just rely on instinct or intuition to get an answer, even if the answer is correct.

If you were alone, living off the land, you would learn to trust your instincts and intuitions, with a reason bridge not always needed. The answer is good enough. It is only you, and you can intuitively sense the answer. On the other hand, if you had a new idea for a business that would be successful, and you need the cooperation of others for resources, you will need logic to build a bridge, so the investors can see the other side of the gap. They cannot read your mind, to see and feel your intuition.

You were already there, on the other side, based on the intuition. But others will not come over unless the logic bridge spans the gap and seems sturdy. The creator may have to take time to translate the intuition into a logic bridge for others. He has the advantage of being able to build from two sides toward the middle.

Since logic can build bridges, sometimes you may have an intuition, but the answer is very fuzzy. Logic can be used to build a bridge with only one side anchored; question, and the other side sitting on sand.; answer. This is like a cavalier type bridge, that extends outward from the sturdy side and hopefully it reaches the other side before it shears and falls. Some rational bridge builders can cavalier long distances and reach a sturdy anchor point. Now the stress profile changes. It makes sense to others.

Some creative people function excellently while tending to be largely irrational. Isn't that right MJ and Kanye? — Greta

I don't know who MJ is, but are you able to rationalize your mention of Kanye? — raza

Michael Jackson.

Does anyone consider Kanye West to be a man of reason? A few quotes of his here: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/the-best-kanye-west-quotes-80943

Does anyone consider Kanye West to be a man of reason? — Greta

So you are not prepared to select one thing to back your statement other than link to a gossip mag?

Are there particular actions of Kanye that show irrationality?

Words he uses merely supports his way of selling and emphasizing his brand. It's the entertainment business. It appears to work for him so is possibly a rational business plan. Keeps his brand on the magazine covers.

Probably astute, more than anything.

Context: entertainment and publicity industry.

, hello.

Why be rational? It is the starting point to epistemology. To side with Descartes, there are first principles which are simply indubitable. "If rational then true" and "If irrational then not true" are examples of these.

So you are not prepared to select one thing to back your statement other than link to a gossip mag? — raza

We are conducting a lightweight and pointless conversation from which I have been keenly hoping to extricate myself so, in context, a gossip mag is an appropriate reference.

Having checked your postings I note that you are of the Trumpian faith, and thus would probably be about as responsive to rationality and reason as the man himself. This is not a meeting of the minds.

This is not a meeting of the minds. — Greta

I see. This is all you look for rather than test your own hypotheses?

Have you tried dating sites?

Thank you for your clear demonstration of irrational behaviour by way of meaningless use of rhetoric in lieu of addressing issues.

You, Kanye, and The Don - paragons of rationality in this age of reason. jk

Good luck finding and securing the bubble you seek.

Claims to rationality are pernicious.

One must develop a perfect epistemology, a perfect logic and and a perfect ontology only that way one could argue that one is rational.

For any other status in philosophy one is intending in the best case, or attempting in the most cases, to be rational.

To act with rationality is often to adhere to human preconceptions and instincts. To find nourishment, we must act in a rational manner, rather than engaging in a series of frivolous noises or bravuras, which will not win for us a meal. Those overwhelming propensities for a crude jest serve socially, either to ostracise an enemy or to create a synergy between the exorbitant planes of discomfort which eld friends must traverse. To behave in a rational manner is to acknowledge cause and effect, and to act according to observations. When the eventual conditioning is completed, we know that we could not achieve our goals without making choices in accordance with cause and effect. When the imperfect knowledge which we incorporate into our schemas is revised, we create new models of cause and effect which to follow.

However, much of our reasons for rationalism or nonsense must be analyzed according to our definition of rationality.

*

Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons? — mrnormal5150

You want a rational argument in support of rationality?

Think on that for a bit.


(Edit - Ah, another zombie thread - this one two years dead.)

You beat me to it!

There seem to be quite a few undead threads stalking the forum, presumably looking for brains to devour.

They are reanimated, perhaps, by incantations in Google.

You want a rational argument in support of rationality? Think on that for a bit. — Banno

Come now, this is just too good. Thread closed.

Nice metaphor! :lol:

Perhaps its because the current discussions going on are so poor and the topics so uninteresting one is forced to look among the unliving threads for something to discuss.

Perhaps you're hanging around the theologists too much. They are all shite.

There are plenty of equally esoteric threads going on, but Ill concede theists have shitty arguments if thats what you mean. The line gets a bit blurry when the discourse has sunken into philosophical poverty like some of the current threads.

Why be rational?

Well, I'm not - in the sense that it's not a binary thing. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. Further when I am not rational, this does not entail that am irrational - which is a pejorative term. It just means I arrived at choices through non-rational means. I don't reason my way to the toilet when I have to pee, and similar decisions are made through non-rational intuitive processes throughout my day. Many decisions I make socially are emotion driven, intuition driven decisions, not ones made via linear deductive, say, mental verbal processes. Of course I use rational processes also.

Even the choice of when to use rational means and when to follow intuition is generally not a rational choice. I make an intuitive choice. I also make an intuitive choice when I decide that my reasoning has been checked enough and it makes sense.

The problem is, if you rely on rational reasoning to justify rationality, this is offering a circular argument; using the conclusion as a premise to justify Itself. — YusufPonders

True. Very true.

So to justify rationality, we will use irrationality. "We use rationality because clocks excrete shruppa warriors' toupees." Pronto, we have a much better supporting argument for rationality than rationality. I mean, how ever possibly can you argue against the claim?

If more is imputed to theology than exercise of the metaphysical imagination and stimulation of aesthetic and moral feeling, then we see a descent into fundamentalist reification, and that is indeed "shite".

I think it's important to be rational when we can, despite most of our lives living fairly "irrationally." Rational planning out our lives and time, in accordance with the goals which we've concluded are what we want to achieve in life, certainly has a very real and very important role. I find it related to self-control in many ways.

Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons? — mrnormal5150

Yes, it is normative. Foundations are required in any inquiry. Rationality provides the foundation for an inquiry regarding existence, for example, or even for our everyday decision-making attempts.