What is logical and what is illogical?

Is something logical because it is inherently justifiable and something illogical because it is inherently unjustifiable or is something logical because we see it as justifiable and something illogical because we see it as unjustifiable?

 

The text book answer would be, something is logical if true premise form a valid conclusion. So for example:

Everybody poops
You are a somebody
Therefore you poop.

 

That's a form of logic, but if that's the only logic, then just about everything is illogical.

Thanks for your input, though.

 

So, I am assuming then this form of logic is seen as justifiable. The premise can be false given certain exceptions. Is their anything inherently justifiable about it?

 

Most forms of logic steer far away from absolutes anyhow.

 

Logic is too easy. Something is logical if the proof of it does not violate the law of identity. Logic as about internal consistency.

 

There are multiple logics, but what makes them all logical is that they adhere to the law of identity.

 

Like beauty, logic is in the eye of the beholder. What's logical to one may bot be to another.
For example: It might be logical for one person to agree with the modern concept of the christian god, but to another, the only thing logical about that story is that it's something that people would create.
This can be seen with all the differing opinion about the same deity.

 

Yes

The processes exists!

And you cannot deny them as they apply to you (in the example) whether you like it or not (you will sh't if you are alive (in process)).


ie... to justify logic then application must exist or it become illogical (uncomprehensible; ie... something from nothing (a magical creation))


This is not a religious thread but a science/philosophical attempt to comprehend logic.


the best definition of logic is; what can be experienced to describe the account (a reasoned observance into comprehensible variables).


ie.... it is basic common sense to any scientific mind that all that exist is based on 3 key components; mass, energy, time.

 

That's not logic.

 

Logic has little if anything to do with experience. Some claim that the law of identity is a discovery about nature, an observed truth. I don't think so. The law of identity is at best an idealization based on incomplete information.

Look up "pure math."

 

So, then nature is illogical? For a particle in superposition isn't just itself spinning in one direction but all directions. For a photon isn't just itself a wave but also a particle. If nature is illogical then isn't logic just seen as justifiable by man?

 

However, there are two sets of logic, Classical Logic which adheres to the Law of Identity and Quantum Logic which does not.

 

to you and you just rendered why; existing beliefs have incorporated a suposition (particle/ wave analogy of light)

a photon is not a particle, it is of electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes. (fact)

That particle analogy is that the wave does not reach a threshold for the indicator except at specific points (often anywhere within the fields).

it is like having a flat pond and until you see a ripple, you cannot identify a wave unless it shares itself to the identity of a specific height of your precieved valuation.

if you would like to go over any of the quantum experiments, just ask but to maintain a held belief as being the law, is stupid!

nature is illogical when misunderstood. ie.... knowledge destroys ignorance

 

There are lots of logics, incompatible with each other but self-consistent.

 

Nature may or may not be logical. We don't know. Whether it is or not in the grand scheme is largely irrelevant, and it better be irrelevant because the question of whether it is or not is probably unanswerable.

I've discussed this many times, maybe not here recently... Waves and particles are not actually waves or particles. Whatever they are, they are what they are, regardless of our difficulties as macro-beings to imagine them.

 

then observe the self realization of;

"i think, therefore i am"

that lack of identity (what am i) is the reason of the divide between mankinds comprehension of moral obligation as being equal to all mankind.


identity of self is the single biggest question of all mankind at one point within their lives (i could care less who you are, if you are conscious and aware of yourself, then you have inquired, period)

math is the universal language between the species of mankind.


be certain i know pure math!

or to be fair, what is your concept that you are trying to expose?

Most any of math know Logic comes from assessing variables of information to deduce and answer. Just as mankind deduces experiences of information bound in memories to a coherance of association within the experience. We seek to know but limited to experience and knowledge.

Logic is simple when addressed honestly as we are all equally capable of logic simply by the coherance enabled by consciousness.

What ruins logic are preconceptions. Kind of like believing light is both a wave and particle by preexisting beliefs and measured experiences without the causality (logic) to back it up.

 

If the premise are false, then they are not true. I said "true premise". If they are true, then it is justifiable, and the conclusion is true if the argument is valid.

 

Thanks. I hear that a lot.


Could you elaborate on the other forms of logic?

 

To add on to my previous statement, this logic is unscientific. Here we have proof that science and logic don't always agree with eachother. Thus, any logical statement towards atheism is (if possible) still unscientific.

Why is it unscientific? It's impossible, even in theory alone, to disprove it. It would take an infinite timescale, and infinite lifespan... to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot achieve either of these in tests.

And yet again we have people who have not ever had a chance to poop. This doesn't prove the theory wrong, but it does show that this is unreasonable. Once again logic, science, and reason are two (perhaps 3 based on your opinion) different things.

I think logic is a lousy tool, so I see no reason to make an argument for other logics. The best tool we have is reason, not logic.

I'd like to point out that reason has it's roots in faith, because all evidence is interpretative, and as anarchotechnocrat points out..our universe is not logical either.

While it is rather good tool for disproving reason, it is not half the tool reason is.

 

I find it interesting that you claim reason is better than logic. Could you please elaborate on what reason is in your mind?

First off, this is a straw man argument. You're setting up logic and coupling it with science, then you knock both down. You are correct, but I never coupled the two, and there was no need to bring it up. However, it is a good chance for me to explain why you are right. Science has close ties with logic. Science is the process of proving true premises. Many people have created valid arguments (which means that logically the premise equal the conclusion), but just because an argument is valid doesn't mean the premise are true. For example:

Kevin has heart problems
All people who have heart problems like roller coasters
Therefore Kevin likes roller coasters

This is valid, but it's not true, and therefore it is not a sound statement.

I would also like to point out the fact that you used logic to come up with a counter argument against logic. Here is your argument:

Science is truth
logic does not always agree with logic
therefore logic is not truth

It is possible to prove much logic. All things have logical arguments to them, however once we can test things, logic sort of takes the back door because logic is just a guess at the correct answer. So the only surviving logic are those things that are still a guess, like god.

Please elaborate on your definition of reason.

 

Please, if you play a football game it is logical to play by the rules. It is illogical to play with no rules.

Logic establishes rules of its game. For instance:


http://www.simplyquality.org/Logic.htm

 

"I think, therefore I am" is problematic because it appears to assume its own conclusion since it's difficult to imagine how one could think without also existing.

Math is a language and a tool but in my view an artificial one. Is nature in fact mathematical in any instance? I can't think of any.

How long is a day? Even this simple question is not accurately answerable beyond a few decimal places. And given enough time, the current answer becomes quite wrong.

 

I'm wondering too. Separating it is interesting, but is there any rigor to it outside the desire to bash logic.

 

I used to think and even argue with you that math is transcendental to mankind. However, recently I realized that there is a major problem with that notion. Math is an artificial language.