An argument about how we argue

[acyckowski]

Posit: In order for any rational construct or philosophic system to be considered valid in a reasonable argument, it must at least meet the minimum standard of having useful application in empirical situations. In other words, theory must withstand the crucible of reality.

Examples of good: Aristotelean logic, Boolean logic, Fuzzy logic, Chaos Theory, etc.

Examples of bad: Any system that claims, or reduces to, the assertion that reason is impossible.

Corrolary: In any given argument, the subject matter and framing of the argument establish the parameters as to the appropriateness of the rational construct.

Example of good: Invoking "fuzzy" logic while discussing the moral distinction between murder and negligent homicide.

Example of bad: Invoking Boolean logic while discussing the moral distinction between murder and negligent homicide.

All right, folks, I gotta go. Run with it!

(this is either going to drop to the back page like a greased rock, or get very weird in a hurry)

[dragonsscout]

Posit: In order for any rational construct or philosophic system to be considered valid in a reasonable argument, it must at least meet the minimum standard of having useful application in empirical situations. In other words, theory must withstand the crucible of reality.

Corrolary: In any given argument, the subject matter and framing of the argument establish the parameters as to the appropriateness of the rational construct.
No it doesn't! You're wrong! I've never heard such nonsense before!

Seriously though, I agree, but I'm not to good on academic logic (stuff like fuzzy logic vs boolean logic). I have a basic understanding of it, but I've just picked stuff up over the years. Hmm... I think I'll try to take a class on logic or debate at some point.

[HackerX]

it must at least meet the minimum standard of having useful application in empirical situations.


Bullshit. Such an argument is unnecessarily limiting. You can't ignore unuseful, irrational etc arguments just because they don't suit your concept of reality.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PHS Philip]

Bullshit. Such an argument is unnecessarily limiting. You can't ignore unuseful, irrational etc arguments just because they don't suit your concept of reality.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Darn INTPs, be serious! Humor is not allowed! *serious face*

[HackerX]

<- This is my serious face...

Or is it? I can't say with absolute certainty, and neither can you.

Or maybe you can, but you can't know that you've reached absolute certainty, even if you have.

[acyckowski]

Darn INTPs, be serious! Humor is not allowed! *serious face*

No, no, that's pretty much how he argues. :D

.....

After I posted the original question, while I was driving home from work, it occurred to me there was a better way to frame the question. (Don't you hate when that happens?)

So, for those of you who can't stand it when I post sentences with 27 separate independent clauses.....

Choose from the following:

When it comes to reasoning....
A. There is only one valid system of reason and it is ________
B. There are no valid system of reason, reason is a facade.
C. There are some valid systems of reason, and some which are nonsense.
D. All systems of reason are valid, if applied in the appropriate context.
E. None of the above. (Explain)

[Monte314]

No, no, that's pretty much how he argues. :D

.....

After I posted the original question, while I was driving home from work, it occurred to me there was a better way to frame the question. (Don't you hate when that happens?)

So, for those of you who can't stand it when I post sentences with 27 separate independent clauses.....

Choose from the following:

When it comes to reasoning....
A. There is only one valid system of reason and it is ________
B. There are no valid system of reason, reason is a facade.
C. There are some valid systems of reason, and some which are nonsense.
D. All systems of reason are valid, if applied in the appropriate context.
E. None of the above. (Explain)

If by "valid system" you mean both consistent and comprehensive enough to include arithmetic, it is well known that the answer is the first clause of B: there is not now, nor will there ever be, such a system.

If by "valid system" you just mean consistent, then there are many, so the answer would be C.

If by "valid system" you mean what you said in your OP, then I'd say you aren't talking about systematic thought at all, but subjective sense experience, which does not admit "validity" as an attribute.

[HackerX]

My argument (well, not mine, it's a pretty common one in philosophy) is simple.

You're argument requires the definition of 1 or more absolutes. Typically, you'll start with "IF we defined A as A", or "IF A is A" while blissfully ignoring the; and what IF it isn't.

... And we're required to accept these absolutes on faith? And you're calling my argument irrational!

They rely on, ultimately, being self validating, and therefore collapse under any external validation.

Now, things like... the law of identity, law of thermodynamics are really useful things to have. I'm not proposing that, in context, they aren't valid. You simply have to accept that, tomorrow, something external could come along that invalidates them. And that something could come along the day after that and invalidate that. And there's simply no end at which we can say that there will be nothing further that can invalidate it.

[Autoptic]

Münchhausen-Trilemma (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) with a possible fourth. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[HackerX]

Münchhausen-Trilemma (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) with a possible fourth. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The trilemma contradicts itself. It has to, to be valid. But "proving" that leads to the circular argument that it defined as point 1.

I might be clutching at straws here (gotta think this one through) but the argument against the 4th point specifically is point 2
"If you prove it based on itself, you haven't proven anything."

Reductio ad absurdum relies on the law of excluded middle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. which is self defining.

See To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's really stretching my logic.

[dogwoodlover]

My argument (well, not mine, it's a pretty common one in philosophy) is simple.

You're argument requires the definition of 1 or more absolutes. Typically, you'll start with "IF we defined A as A", or "IF A is A" while blissfully ignoring the; and what IF it isn't.

... And we're required to accept these absolutes on faith? And you're calling my argument irrational!

They rely on, ultimately, being self validating, and therefore collapse under any external validation.

Now, things like... the law of identity, law of thermodynamics are really useful things to have. I'm not proposing that, in context, they aren't valid. You simply have to accept that, tomorrow, something external could come along that invalidates them. And that something could come along the day after that and invalidate that. And there's simply no end at which we can say that there will be nothing further that can invalidate it.

Reasoning *must* begin somewhere. No matter what principle you begin with, someone can always come along and say "HEY, PROVE IT!" and thus, we have postmodernists.

Philosophical skepticism always leads to infinite regress in every case, and therefore deems itself USELESS. It one were to be consistent with this, you might even find yourself being required to doubt doubting as being a reliable way of distinguishing truth!

[HackerX]

Reasoning *must* begin somewhere.

oh really?

I see no problem with any of it, including infinite regress as you call it. For as long as somebody can come along and say "hey, prove it!" and all you can fall back to some absolute based of "rational faith" then your "rational faith" is flawed and unnecessarily limiting. Tough biccies if you think that that makes life difficult.

It's hardly useless. If it were useless, people would have stopped investigating things the first instance they came across them rather than having an infinite drive to get closer to understanding things better.

[Antares]

"rational faith" to me is a paradox unto itself. Faith is not logical because it's belief without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence.

[cncracer]

I try to debate at the general level of the people I am debating with. To do otherwise give the appearance of intellectual snobbery and limits input from all parties. It also makes a person look like a pseudo intellectual trying to show off, which I see as a negative in any debate. The Academic logic might be OK if you want to debate with that level of people, but I find more pleasure in debating with individuals with a wider view on issues as apposed to the narrower academic stand.

I have been told I do not debate in a gentle way but rather with a killer instinct, which can cause stress in a good debate. It can limit the input from others as fast as being too high brow and is my personal problem. Any other have the killer instinct in a debate?

[acyckowski]

If by "valid system" you mean both consistent and comprehensive enough to include arithmetic, it is well known that the answer is the first clause of B: there is not now, nor will there ever be, such a system.

If by "valid system" you just mean consistent, then there are many, so the answer would be C.

If by "valid system" you mean what you said in your OP, then I'd say you aren't talking about systematic thought at all, but subjective sense experience, which does not admit "validity" as an attribute.

So to sum up, you're saying "D"?





acyckowski added to this post, 8 minutes and 25 seconds later...

My argument (well, not mine, it's a pretty common one in philosophy) is simple.

You're argument requires the definition of 1 or more absolutes. Typically, you'll start with "IF we defined A as A", or "IF A is A" while blissfully ignoring the; and what IF it isn't.

... And we're required to accept these absolutes on faith? And you're calling my argument irrational!

They rely on, ultimately, being self validating, and therefore collapse under any external validation.

Now, things like... the law of identity, law of thermodynamics are really useful things to have. I'm not proposing that, in context, they aren't valid. You simply have to accept that, tomorrow, something external could come along that invalidates them. And that something could come along the day after that and invalidate that. And there's simply no end at which we can say that there will be nothing further that can invalidate it.

Okay, so if I've got this straight, you're saying that logical systems are irrational because some unknown hypothetical may prove them wrong, so the rational position is to suppose that everything is irrational until proven otherwise...except that we'll never quite know because there just might be another unknown hypothetical skulking about the tall grass?

Exactly what, pray tell, would you say A is? "About" A? A unless proven otherwise? A +/- .001? Could it not be possible, and I know this dives into the wildly irrational...that A is simply A?

Keep in mind, the question is about useful inquiries, not mental exercises.





acyckowski added to this post, 5 minutes and 43 seconds later...

"rational faith" to me is a paradox unto itself. Faith is not logical because it's belief without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence.

Oh? Prove logic without using logic. Kind of hard to do without circular, and therefore irrational, reasoning.

As dogwoodlover pointed out, we have to start somewhere. Your choice of logic implies you take as faith basic assumptions such as identity, necessity, non-contradiction, etc. Lack of evidence against these assumptions is not the same as evidence for. So exactly how logical is your belief in logic?

[enWTFp]

So, for those of you who can't stand it when I post sentences with 27 separate independent clauses.....

Choose from the following:

When it comes to reasoning....
A. There is only one valid system of reason and it is ________
B. There are no valid system of reason, reason is a facade.
C. There are some valid systems of reason, and some which are nonsense.
D. All systems of reason are valid, if applied in the appropriate context.
E. None of the above. (Explain)Yeah, 27 is too many, man. Chill out, dude, yo, bro. \m/

D.

And I find this to be the most important lesson in philosophy. There was one English guy in 15c. that said that 'everything is true'. So it's all about ability to argue, richness of ideas, universality of theories etc. To make it clear, I'm not saying it's all just hermeneutics or sophism. There should simply be tolerance.

[acyckowski]

There should simply be tolerance.

Oh, come on over here and gimme a hug!

Blech.:rolleyes:

[enWTFp]

Sophism is not interesting enough.

Tolerance of mind is simply the ability to know, understand and appreciate more types of reasoning. It is independent of rationality.

[HackerX]

Okay, so if I've got this straight, you're saying that logical systems are irrationalimcomplete because some unknown hypothetical may prove them wrong, so the rational position is to suppose that everything is irrationalimcomplete until proven otherwise...except that we'll never quite know because there just might be another unknown hypothetical skulking about the tall grass?



Fixed.


Exactly what, pray tell, would you say A is? "About" A? A unless proven otherwise? A +/- .001? Could it not be possible, and I know this dives into the wildly irrational...that A is simply A?


Sure, A is A. Are you sure you know what that means though? I know I don't.

A is A, but my point is, human's can't fully comprehend "is" is and that beyond "useful inquiries" won't ever. When a person thinks something "is" something, they start defining it using a number of limited terms. Invariably, they can miss things, things that would either be observable, or things that won't ever potentially be observable.


Keep in mind, the question is about useful inquiries, not mental exercises.


Somethings you might be ok debating with your idea of "useful inquiries". Somethings require going further. ie. It might be "useful" to talk about physics in terms of newtons laws, but we already know that they're incomplete. Just the same as debating "god" and the metaphysical using mathematical logic. You're context is wrong. I'm saying that, also, sometimes the context isn't defineable. You're talking about putting limits (definitions) to a system (context) that we'll never fully comprehend.

[dogwoodlover]

oh really?

I see no problem with any of it, including infinite regress as you call it. For as long as somebody can come along and say "hey, prove it!" and all you can fall back to some absolute based of "rational faith" then your "rational faith" is flawed and unnecessarily limiting. Tough biccies if you think that that makes life difficult.

It's hardly useless. If it were useless, people would have stopped investigating things the first instance they came across them rather than having an infinite drive to get closer to understanding things better.

Scientific skepticism is one thing (show me some evidence of claim x); philosophical skepticism however IS in and of itself a useless position, though it can be helpful in the sense that it can increase the preciseness of those who do not claim philosophical skepticism as their default position.

Its simple intellectual masturbation.

"rational faith" to me is a paradox unto itself. Faith is not logical because it's belief without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence.

In this case we are questioning "evidence itself." IF A is indeed not A, then evidence for ANYTHING is impossible. If a cow is not a cow, an atom not an atom, an argument not an argument, truth not truth, logic not logic, an idea not an idea, etc. then we simply cannot discuss what "is," whether in the abstract or the concrete.

It reduces to absurdity.





dogwoodlover added to this post, 46 minutes and 36 seconds later...

A is A, but my point is, human's can't fully comprehend "is" is and that beyond "useful inquiries" won't ever. When a person thinks something "is" something, they start defining it using a number of limited terms. Invariably, they can miss things, things that would either be observable, or things that won't ever potentially be observable.

Of what significance is this? You're simply describing the chasm between subject and object. Metaphysical certainty is a bygone ideal, but SO WHAT? You're engaging in intellectual acrobatics that serve NO PURPOSE and say nothing useful.

Somethings you might be ok debating with your idea of "useful inquiries". Somethings require going further. ie. It might be "useful" to talk about physics in terms of newtons laws, but we already know that they're incomplete. Just the same as debating "god" and the metaphysical using mathematical logic. You're context is wrong. I'm saying that, also, sometimes the context isn't defineable. You're talking about putting limits (definitions) to a system (context) that we'll never fully comprehend.

How novel; this has been established for centuries. Metaphysical certainty is IMPOSSIBLE. Philosophy and science have long recognized this. CERTAINTY is beyond the human condition, and thus, not to be bothered with, because the idea of getting "out of consciousness" and "into the world" cannot be acheived. It has long been a "given" in science that "truths" about the world can at their best only be increasingly more and more precise "approximations." However, lack of certainty does not mean its foolish to suppose for the sake of greater understanding that "A = A," and it does not mean that all intellectual endevours are futile or "irrational" (whatever that means in this context!).



"Philosophers have only interpreted the world--the point is to change it."

-- Karl Marx

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

-- Albert Einstein