Reasoning, Logic and Faith - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 02-08-2007, 02:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
It must be very exciting and interesting to take a logic course. You all are sparking my interests.
gaya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 02-08-2007, 02:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Are there logic courses easily available where you're studying now?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#33 Old 02-08-2007, 02:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Are there logic courses easily available where you're studying now?

Yea, I'm sure my universtiy offers logic and philosophy courses. I was actually supposed to take one as an undergrad but somehow got out of it. Maybe i'll audit one next semester.
gaya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 02-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
well my professor was saying that among the inductive methods are ideas and concepts that can be proven only by using themselves. Science and deductive involved testing things, and things that can only be tasted/touched/felt/etc. So deductive things deal with the physical, and inductive deal with thoughts.



If math is deductive then how do you know a previous concept is true before moving on the next? 4^2, depends on 4*4, which depends on 4+4+4+4. There is no way to physically test the principles without using math. Therefore it is self proving. You cannot test it by tasting it, or hearing it, or watching it under difference circumstances.



Perhaps we have a misinterpretation thing. If I leave out the titles. Math still can only be proved by using math, and faith can only be proven by using faith - this is the main point behind my above theory's.
troub is offline  
#35 Old 02-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Has anyone noticed we're a bit off-topic? I bet everyone has 900 points by now



So are there logic courses in heaven??+++

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#36 Old 02-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I don't understand this whole "self-proving" thing if it is used to make some kind of a distinction between (empirical) science and math/logic. At the fundamental level, you have rules of reasoning in both areas. You have a rule in math or logic that from given premises you can arrive at some conclusion. In empirical science, you have a rule that if some physical object behaves in some way, this confirms some hypothesis. These rules may in the end be arbitrary, believing in them is a commitment we make. Looking at it like this, I don't see a point to the dichotomy referred to.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#37 Old 02-08-2007, 02:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

well my professor was saying that among the inductive methods are ideas and concepts that can be proven only by using themselves. Science and deductive involved testing things, and things that can only be tasted/touched/felt/etc. So deductive things deal with the physical, and inductive deal with thoughts.



If math is deductive then how do you know a previous concept is true before moving on the next? 4^2, depends on 4*4, which depends on 4+4+4+4. There is no way to physically test the principles without using math. Therefore it is self proving. You cannot test it by tasting it, or hearing it, or watching it under difference circumstances.



Perhaps we have a misinterpretation thing. If I leave out the titles. Math still can only be proved by using math, and faith can only be proven by using faith - this is the main point behind my above theory's.

I've always look at math (at least lower math) as a language for the physical world, which is why I asked earlier about different types of maths. In lab math, for example, the physical and the math are intertwined. Mathematical formulas in chemistry have application and who uses them doesn't matter. That doesn't seem to be the case for faith.
gaya is offline  
#38 Old 02-08-2007, 02:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

I've always look at math (at least lower math) as a language for the physical world, which is why I asked earlier about different types of maths.

My view is that mathematical truths are necessarily true, and so that their holding true of the physical world follows from this -- as opposed to the idea (dunno if this is what you meant) that mathematical truths are some kind of generalizations of our empirical experiences (seeing that putting two apples together with 3 apples in a basket results in 5 apples, etc.).

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#39 Old 02-08-2007, 02:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

My view is that mathematical truths are necessarily true, and so that their holding true of the physical world follows from this

Could you please re-word this for me? eta: you don't have to...after reading it a couple of times, I understand.

Quote:
-- as opposed to the idea (dunno if this is what you meant) that mathematical truths are some kind of generalizations of our empirical experiences (seeing that putting two apples together with 3 apples in a basket results in 5 apples, etc.).

Well, i think it's an aspect of math but I don't know higher mathematics so I don't really have another way of looking at it.

eta: no then, not necessarily.



etaa: Perhaps I'm thinking of the physical as evidence for math and vice versa (in certain circumstances at least).
gaya is offline  
#40 Old 02-08-2007, 02:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Has anyone noticed we're a bit off-topic? I bet everyone has 900 points by now



So are there logic courses in heaven??+++



Maybe this discussion should move to a new thread, "Reasoning, logic, and faith"?



Is heaven governed by any laws of math like the physical world?

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#41 Old 02-08-2007, 02:43 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
does "heaven"? or does "the spiritual world"?
troub is offline  
#42 Old 02-08-2007, 02:46 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post


etaa: Perhaps I'm thinking of the physical as evidence for math and vice versa (in certain circumstances at least).

Ah okay. Yeah I could agree that physical phenomena are sort of corroborations for mathematical and logical laws.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

Is heaven governed by any laws of math like the physical world?

And is God governed by laws of morality or is it the other way around?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#43 Old 02-08-2007, 02:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

does "heaven"? or does "the spiritual world"?



Does what?






I don't know. I was just trying to get back on topic of what heaven is like.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#44 Old 02-08-2007, 02:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Related to the issue of the relation between logic and empiria: at one point in time it was thought that logical laws are actually psychological laws. That is, deductive rules of inference are kind of empirical laws about how people in fact think. This view came under heavy attack, and rightly so.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#45 Old 02-08-2007, 03:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
WonderRandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,591
MOD POSTIf you guys give me a bit of time, I can split the OT discussion to a new thread. What would you like it to be titled?

Nec Aspera Terrent
WonderRandy is offline  
#46 Old 02-08-2007, 03:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Nogardsram's suggestion sounds good to me: "Reasoning, logic, and faith"

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#47 Old 02-08-2007, 03:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Thanks, I was just going to start a new thread, but that sounds better.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#48 Old 02-08-2007, 03:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Related to the issue of the relation between logic and empiria: at one point in time it was thought that logical laws are actually psychological laws. That is, deductive rules of inference are kind of empirical laws about how people in fact think. This view came under heavy attack, and rightly so.

Isn't that what's sort of going on in this conversation re:faith?
gaya is offline  
#49 Old 02-08-2007, 03:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
WonderRandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,591
*picks up machete and goes back to start re-reading and such...*

Nec Aspera Terrent
WonderRandy is offline  
#50 Old 02-08-2007, 03:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
WonderRandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,591
Done. I hope I found the right starting point...

Nec Aspera Terrent
WonderRandy is offline  
#51 Old 02-08-2007, 03:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Thanks WonderRandy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

well my professor was saying that among the inductive methods are ideas and concepts that can be proven only by using themselves. Science and deductive involved testing things, and things that can only be tasted/touched/felt/etc. So deductive things deal with the physical, and inductive deal with thoughts.



If math is deductive then how do you know a previous concept is true before moving on the next? 4^2, depends on 4*4, which depends on 4+4+4+4. There is no way to physically test the principles without using math. Therefore it is self proving. You cannot test it by tasting it, or hearing it, or watching it under difference circumstances.



Perhaps we have a misinterpretation thing. If I leave out the titles. Math still can only be proved by using math, and faith can only be proven by using faith - this is the main point behind my above theory's.



I don't think deductive deals only with the physical and inductive deals with only thoughts. For example:



Every crow I've seen is black.

Therefore all crows are black.



This is inductive, yet deals with the physical.



Is math 'proved' by math or logic?



In math, a statement can be taken as true. This (along with more) can yield a whole realm of 'mathematics' then the same statement is taken to be false, which then yields another realm of 'mathematics'. It is not something one says is true on a higher realm.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#52 Old 02-08-2007, 03:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Isn't that what's sort of going on in this conversation re:faith?

What do you mean? Do you mean that troub's position has been that logical/mathematical laws are psychological?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#53 Old 02-08-2007, 03:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nookle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

Math still can only be proved by using math, and faith can only be proven by using faith



But - - You can't 'prove' something with faith. You can only have more faith. There is no concrete. The visual at the basis of math 'proves' math. There is nothing at the basis of faith BUT faith,..... and round and round we go.
nookle is offline  
#54 Old 02-08-2007, 04:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

What do you mean? Do you mean that troub's position has been that logical/mathematical laws are psychological?

Well, replace pyschological with faith based logic...I guess.

eta: to be clear...not traditional logic/mathematical laws but proporting that laws (similar, i don't know) exist in faith based logic.

etaa: which i suppose is in the psychological realm anyway.
gaya is offline  
#55 Old 02-08-2007, 04:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I think I have a hard time understanding the whole theistic argument in the first place, i.e. the argument that faith is on a fundamental level similar to our trust in the logical/mathematical laws. (Then again I sort of jumped in the thread.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#56 Old 02-08-2007, 04:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
I don't understand it. i'm just guessing here. Clarification from troub et al would be interesting to read. At the same time, explanations might vary from person to person.
gaya is offline  
#57 Old 02-08-2007, 05:40 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

To me, deductive reasoning is such that you arrive at a conclusion from the premises in such a way that the conclusion was already implicit in the premises. The inference "all men are bald, SS is a man -> SS is bald" is an example of such reasoning.

In inductive reasoning, on the other hand, this is not the case. Empirical generalization is a paradigmatic example of the latter kind of reasoning: you have enough empirical data about e.g. individual meat-eating animals and so you generalize from that to the animal species as a whole (that is a carnivore species). Deductive reasoning does not leave room for error -- assuming the premise(s), it's impossible for the conclusion to be untrue (assuming the argument is valid) --, inductive reasoning does (you may discover a counter-example to your generalization about the animal species).



Logic, as it is traditionally taught in schools etc. is concerned with deductive reasoning, not inductive.





True. troub's comment is valuable, though, because all systems of reason, even those that are deductive, are based on fundamental postulates that are faith-based or achieved through induction. You have to start with something - this is why we have R&W's Principia Mathematica and challenges against Euclidean geometry.
flipper is offline  
#58 Old 02-08-2007, 06:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

True. troub's comment is valuable, though, because all systems of reason, even those that are deductive, are based on fundamental postulates that are faith-based or achieved through induction. .

That's interesting, flipper. Re: one of the examples given earlier

"Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

Are you saying that the determination that socrates is a man is based on induction then?
gaya is offline  
#59 Old 02-08-2007, 06:16 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Actually, that one is a huge leap, because you have to first wholly define what man is. Then you have to show that Socrates fits the bill, then you have to explain what mortality is. That's a very abstract scenario so it's hard to talk about in terms of postulates.



What I'm talking about are very simple principles that have never been proven to the satisfaction of experts, but seem reasonable assumptions within their discipline and are still taken as truths for the sake of moving on, such as the belief that parallel lines never intersect, or that 1+1=2.
flipper is offline  
#60 Old 02-08-2007, 06:19 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,973
>>True. troub's comment is valuable, though, because all systems of reason, even those that are deductive, are based on fundamental postulates that are faith-based or achieved through induction. You have to start with something - this is why we have R&W's Principia Mathematica and challenges against Euclidean geometry.>>



Correct, although I am a bit confused by what troub was putting forth, as the mappings of deductive and inductive on physical/conceptual, certain/uncertain, and necessary/contingent was a bit...I couldn't make sense of it.



>>That's interesting, flipper. Re: one of the examples given earlier

"Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

Are you saying that the determination that socrates is a man is based on induction then?>>



More precisely, the transformational rule that is used to arrive at that conclusion is based on axioms that are assumed (but they are assumed because the "work").



ebola
Gnome Chomsky is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off