Authority and Logic

[cuchulain]

It recently came up in another topic in the monotheism section that logic is independent of person.  It also came up with the person in particular that they had a degree and therefore knew.  

I have been considering this position a great deal over the last few days.  I stated during that particular debate something along the lines of my logic vs theirs, and they insisted that logic is independent of person, and therefore the same regardless of who is using it.

I don't know that I agree or disagree.  I can understand that logic is a process.  It is defined as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.  Principles are defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning: and also;  a fundamental source or basis of something.

So I wonder, where do principles come from?  Are they extraneous of man, or dependent on man to form?  From the definition, it certainly sounds as if principles depend upon man to define them.  And logic with a strict set of principles seems to me to require a human mind to form.  So I do not believe logic to be independent of man.  I fully acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, and am very welcome to input proving such.  

 

So far as claiming a degree grants a certain amount of authority over a subject...I say hockey.  There are lots of assumptions about the world and the people within it.  There are lots of people in lots of different flavors.  I have known people who couldn't figure things out easily at all, and had to be handheld the entire way through any process repeatedly to get it.  Some of those people had degrees.  One subject, my wife, has a degree in mass communications, specializing in recording technologies, and can't hook up the dvd player!  I have known people who could reason with the best of them, determining on so few facts as to seem almost amazing to me, who had no formal education whatsoever.  I had a great grandfather who could beat the register with calculations, including tax, and never graduated middle school.  A piece of paper as authority seems very weak to me.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Formal logic is not quite the same thing as reasoning.  Formal logic has math.

 

If A equals B and B equals C -- then A equals C.

 

Math can be manipulated.  At the lower end is basic arithmetic.  The answer is either right or wrong.  Personality has nothing to do with anything.

 

Then again, there is statistics.  An application of math.  Mark Twain defined the degrees of falsehood as -- "Lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

In the abstract, it should not matter who is using logic.  In the real world, it matters.  

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

To add a little to Jonathan's statement, (from Quora)

 

"Reason is much broader and includes logic, but also includes aspects of argumentation -- making points using rhetoric. Reasoning must avoid what are called fallacies, too, such as argument from authority ("this is true because I'm an expert") and the ecological fallacy, which involves taking a general fact and assuming it applies to every individual case ("men are stronger than women, therefore Bob is stronger than Jane" -- not if Bob is 97 and Jane is a weightlifter, he's not).

In logic you can always absolutely prove what you set out to prove if you do it right, but its utility is limited in day-to-day life. Reasoning is much broader and assembles evidence to support a viewpoint, but it seldom constitutes absolute proof."

 

 

[the Hearthwitch]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

It recently came up in another topic in the monotheism section that logic is independent of person.  It also came up with the person in particular that they had a degree and therefore knew.  

I have been considering this position a great deal over the last few days.  I stated during that particular debate something along the lines of my logic vs theirs, and they insisted that logic is independent of person, and therefore the same regardless of who is using it.

I don't know that I agree or disagree.  I can understand that logic is a process.  It is defined as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.  Principles are defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning: and also;  a fundamental source or basis of something.

So I wonder, where do principles come from?  Are they extraneous of man, or dependent on man to form?  From the definition, it certainly sounds as if principles depend upon man to define them.  And logic with a strict set of principles seems to me to require a human mind to form.  So I do not believe logic to be independent of man.  I fully acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, and am very welcome to input proving such.  

 

So far as claiming a degree grants a certain amount of authority over a subject...I say hockey.  There are lots of assumptions about the world and the people within it.  There are lots of people in lots of different flavors.  I have known people who couldn't figure things out easily at all, and had to be handheld the entire way through any process repeatedly to get it.  Some of those people had degrees.  One subject, my wife, has a degree in mass communications, specializing in recording technologies, and can't hook up the dvd player!  I have known people who could reason with the best of them, determining on so few facts as to seem almost amazing to me, who had no formal education whatsoever.  I had a great grandfather who could beat the register with calculations, including tax, and never graduated middle school.  A piece of paper as authority seems very weak to me.

Agreed, about the piece of paper...especially when you consider that it matters what country, and how wealthy it is, that piece of paper came from. Even the pieces of paper are subject to being, well, subjective. (And ridiculously elitist, sometimes.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

To add a little to Jonathan's statement, (from Quora)

 

"Reason is much broader and includes logic, but also includes aspects of argumentation -- making points using rhetoric. Reasoning must avoid what are called fallacies, too, such as argument from authority ("this is true because I'm an expert") and the ecological fallacy, which involves taking a general fact and assuming it applies to every individual case ("men are stronger than women, therefore Bob is stronger than Jane" -- not if Bob is 97 and Jane is a weightlifter, he's not).

In logic you can always absolutely prove what you set out to prove if you do it right, but its utility is limited in day-to-day life. Reasoning is much broader and assembles evidence to support a viewpoint, but it seldom constitutes absolute proof."

 

 

 

 

 

I remember the other thread with pain.  I asserted that there was inadequate evidence for the existence of God.  For a response, I was given the technical names for three logical arguments.  They came, with assertion by authority, that the arguments were valid and that further, they were proof.  I was then commanded to look them up for myself if I was not familiar with them.  My teacher didn't have time to bother with me.  He was cooking dinner.  I do so despise being lectured to by condescending, smug, arrogant, snots.   The more so when I come looking for friendly chat, rather than life and death debate.

 

I want to be clear about my Agnostic position.  I don't actually know whether or not God exists.  I am inclined to doubt God's existence, but I don't actually know.  Further, I have been through periods in the past when I did believe.  It seems unlikely, but I could change my mind again.  Long time visitors to this forum may remember when I advocated for Pantheism.  There were other periods of my life when I had other beliefs.  They involved prayer.  

 

The beliefs of others are not my concern.  I have nothing to sell.  If others choose to believe -- I am not in any way wounded.  Nobody is under any obligation to show me proof of anything -- unless they intend to change my beliefs.  Then I need evidence.  Arguments are not evidence.  Not even when they are clever arguments based on logic.  Not even if the arguer has academic credentials.  

 

 

 

One additional thought.  Said academic snot was afraid to use his real name.  Look to the left of these words.  I am using my real name.  Who has the courage of his convictions?  If anybody actually cares, I have a Face Book page with my real picture.  Same name.

 

If I can figure out how to import the picture, I will.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[the Hearthwitch]

You can use it on your icon, Jonathan- that's how I got my silly hat on here.  (I have a fondness for silly hats.) Just go to your profile, and click on your profile picture- you can upload it to the site. I've seen your picture on FB- very distinguished. I like it. 

[Pastor Dave]

54 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I remember the other thread with pain.  I asserted that there was inadequate evidence for the existence of God.  For a response, I was given the technical names for three logical arguments.  They came, with assertion by authority, that the arguments were valid and that further, they were proof.  I was then commanded to look them up for myself if I was not familiar with them.  My teacher didn't have time to bother with me.  He was cooking dinner.  I do so despise being lectured to by condescending, smug, arrogant, snots.   The more so when I come looking for friendly chat, rather than life and death debate.

 

I want to be clear about my Agnostic position.  I don't actually know whether or not God exists.  I am inclined to doubt God's existence, but I don't actually know.  Further, I have been through periods in the past when I did believe.  It seems unlikely, but I could change my mind again.  Long time visitors to this forum may remember when I advocated for Pantheism.  There were other periods of my life when I had other beliefs.  They involved prayer.  

 

The beliefs of others are not my concern.  I have nothing to sell.  If others choose to believe -- I am not in any way wounded.  Nobody is under any obligation to show me proof of anything -- unless they intend to change my beliefs.  Then I need evidence.  Arguments are not evidence.  Not even when they are clever arguments based on logic.  Not even if the arguer has academic credentials.  

 

 

 

One additional thought.  Said academic snot was afraid to use his real name.  Look to the left of these words.  I am using my real name.  Who has the courage of his convictions?  If anybody actually cares, I have a Face Book page with my real picture.  Same name.

 

If I can figure out how to import the picture, I will.  

 

 

I wasn't even planning on posting to that topic until I saw in my all activity how he was attempting to belittle respected members of this forum with his arrogance. Even if I usually disagree with you and cuchulain, you are respected members of this community.

 

I'd also like to make this clear (and I'm going to borrow from you Jonathan) I don't know if his credentials were/are real or not. I don't know and I don't care.

If he really wanted to impress us maybe he should have attempted to astonish us with his knowledge or  dazzle us with his intelligence, not just inform us of his degree and his position as a "professor".

 

My narcissist alarm started going off right away. I can't speak for anyone other than myself but stroking someones ego is not why I continue to come here. I come to learn what I can and teach when I have an opportunity.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Pastor Dave

[Brother Kaman]

Logic has nothing to do with how the human brain interprets reality. As far as degrees are concerned, I have known way too many people who have never allowed their education to get in the way of their ignorance and biases. As far as the pompous arse in question, I was quite entertained by his rantings.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Brother Kaman

[RevBogovac]

In short, cuchulain; you're right: logic is totally dependent on context.

 

The very word (in ancient Greece) meant ""the word that is spoken". And the wide array of different "logic" types clearly demonstrates that dependancy on context.

 

But, at the same time - as a big fan of Aristotle (and having majored my Bachelor's degree in Political Philosophy... ) - I would say that although temporal modal logic, inductive logic and syllogistic logic (and later on  symbolic logic, mathematical logic and Boolean logic) do imply that due to their foundations in mathematics and attempts to derive mathematical truths from axioms and inference rules there is also something like - for instance - the saying of Chinese logical philosopher Gongsun Long who proposed the paradox "One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two."

 

And although I spent years of study to get that formal degree... you could have read this all on Wikipedia too... 

[Key]

To me, logic is simply known results based from experiences, both personal and of others. What is correct, incorrect, black, white, movable, immovable, pleasure, or pain. Those sort of things that have definite conclusions common among many people. I may well be wrong. (The individual in question would have likely tried to bludgeon me with that as fact, simply because he had multiple degrees.)

Principles may not be exactly have logic, but may have roots in it based on what a person believes or was taught to guide them in life. So in a way, logic isn't independent of a person. But principle is independent of a society, whereas logic, isn't. 

As for degrees, they are nice wall decorations that declare a person took a great deal of time to learn things they might not have otherwise. I don't think it necessarily makes a person wiser, or better than someone who hasn't one.

While a plumber might not know what to do with a scalpel, a doctor might not know what to do with a wrench. It could require another person to teach them those things, which may require quite a bit of patience and repetition. (Something a certain person was disinclined to do, and seemed to believe was beneath his imagined status.)

But that also brings back the issue of principles. A personal rule book of what was acceptable or not.

 

Math is said to be an exact science. Results are always the same. Whereas, statistic results always show what a person wants them interpreted to mean. Statistics can be manipulated. Math not so much.

 

These are just my thoughts, right or wrong. But I am always willing to learn, which may change them. But I tend to not so much from high brow, condescending dolts.

 

[cuchulain]

I don't know the differences between all the forms of logic.  

I was thinking yesterday about an analogy to use for this, so here goes:  The human interprets the light that is reflected off the surface of my car and says, "white".  I have been told, and understand through various teachers, and very well may be wrong...that the actual car isn't what is white, but rather it's the light that is reflected from the car and our minds interpretation of that light.  I kind of think the same thing with logic.  Logic doesn't exist in and of itself, but rather is filtered through the human faculties until we come up with what we each believe to be logical.  I have little doubt that diego from the other thread believed in his logic(I know, that probably is irksome to have someone refer to it as his logic, but that's my interpretation).  But I certainly didn't start this thread with any intention of baiting or aggravating others.  I thought the topic was worth discussing in and of itself.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

I wasn't even planning on posting to that topic until I saw in my all activity how he was attempting to belittle respected members of this forum with his arrogance. Even if I usually disagree with you and cuchulain, you are respected members of this community.

 

I'd also like to make this clear (and I'm going to borrow from you Jonathan) I don't know if his credentials were/are real or not. I don't know and I don't care.

If he really wanted to impress us maybe he should have attempted to astonish us with his knowledge or  dazzle us with his intelligence, not just inform us of his degree and his position as a "professor".

 

My narcissist alarm started going off right away. I can't speak for anyone other than myself but stroking someones ego is not why I continue to come here. I come to learn what I can and teach when I have an opportunity.

 

 

I don't know who said it.  "If you can't dazzle them with logic, baffle them with **."                

 

[Pastor Dave]

LOL

 

[cuchulain]

What bothered me was he kept insisting we had all made the assumption he was a creationist.  Am I the only one who sees on his profile that he appreciates 
"God's creation"?  Doesn't that make him a...creationist?  Out of his own mouth?

[mererdog]

54 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Doesn't that make him a...creationist?  Out of his own mouth?

That would depend on how broad your definition of the word is. Semantics is what makes logic useful. It does no good to know whether all A are B, if you don't actually know what an A or a B is. With purely conceptual things like creationism, beauty, or morality, that gets really complicated. With no physical object to point to, it can be difficult to assure we are talking about the same thing.

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

One additional thought.  Said academic snot was afraid to use his real name.  Look to the left of these words.  I am using my real name.  Who has the courage of his convictions?  If anybody actually cares, I have a Face Book page with my real picture.  Same name.

 

If I can figure out how to import the picture, I will.

 

Are you aware of the concept of the "sock puppet"? Absent a face to face meeting, I have no real way to verify your identity. Your claim that you use your real name or photograph is essentially the same as his claim that he has a degree. 

[cuchulain]

34 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Are you aware of the concept of the "sock puppet"? Absent a face to face meeting, I have no real way to verify your identity. Your claim that you use your real name or photograph is essentially the same as his claim that he has a degree. 

indeed, a certain amount of anonymity is built into the interactions we have on the internet.  this allows for greater ease of deception in terms of credentials, or at the least more distrust of credentials on a claim only basis.

 

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

or at the least more distrust of credentials on a claim only basis.

 

I consider that to be one of the benefits of anonymity in dialogue. It acts as a sort of social equalizer. What matters is not your credentials, your age, or your economic status. All that matters is what you say. 

[cuchulain]

I can certainly agree with that sentiment.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

Are you aware of the concept of the "sock puppet"? Absent a face to face meeting, I have no real way to verify your identity. Your claim that you use your real name or photograph is essentially the same as his claim that he has a degree. 

 

 

If you care, I can present myself to you or your trusted agent.  In person.  I have a New York State issued Driver's license.  The administrators at my senior centers can identify me.   What kind of proof would you like?