Reasoning, Logic and Faith - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-07-2007, 06:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
rawgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdufstuff View Post

Your logic (and I'm using the term very loosely) makes my head hurt.



St. Anslem said, "I believe in order that I may understand." Faith is the starting point in the search for truth. Faith is the foundation for knowledge.
rawgirl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-07-2007, 07:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
guess what?



philosophy 101:



Inductive Reasoning:

math

logic

faith

religion

absolute truths

~thoughts



Deductive Reasoning:

science

~concrete objects



zomz! logic and faith are in the same category!

Yeah, you cannot touch faith, you cannot taste faith, you cannot hear faith. But you cannot touch math, you cannot taste math, you cannot hear math. But how many of us are quick to denounce math because we cannot experience it with our 5 senses? It is a self-proofing, absolute truth - but we accept it. And even use it in our sciences.



Faith isn't as unreasonable as it seems.
troub is offline  
#3 Old 02-07-2007, 07:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
You expect us to prove faith without using faith, but I might ask you to prove math, without using math.



Prove what 4^2 equals without using mathematical logic, and I will then prove faith without using faith based logic.
troub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-07-2007, 07:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
synergy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

You expect us to prove faith without using faith, but I might ask you to prove math, without using math.



Prove what 4^2 equals without using mathematical logic, and I will then prove faith without using faith based logic.



Nice!



I loved logic class, which was a philosophy class, yet also counted as a math credit !

http://bringingyouohm.wordpress.com/

Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavanto

'May everyone everywhere be happy
May the whole world be joyous'
synergy is offline  
#5 Old 02-07-2007, 10:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kentauros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,043
Great point, Troub

This whole discussion reminded me of a quote (that according to wikipedia maybe be a misquote) of Tertullian: "I believe because it is absurd." So, I looked it up, and found "Fideism". It's a fascinating view, and seems to fit with what you just stated about not being able to prove faith (or anything else) without using it.



I've never had logic or philosophy classes, so if I "err" in logic, please forgive me as I am not so eloquently educated. Drafting and Graphic Arts doesn't really cover those fields much



namastEric
kentauros is offline  
#6 Old 02-07-2007, 10:46 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
Evolution relies on Biology

Biology relies on Chemistry

Chemistry relies on Physics

Physics relies on Math

Math relies on itself.



Deduction is based on Induction. Our whole reality is faith.
troub is offline  
#7 Old 02-07-2007, 10:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

Prove what 4^2 equals without using mathematical logic, and I will then prove faith without using faith based logic.



We know that 2+2 is 4 because several objects in front of us (counting 1+1+1+1) is this number 4. Experience using this system quantifies itself. We know from experiences that 2+2 always equals 4, and have grown to believe that 2+2 will always equal 4, because math is an absolute self-fulfilling truth. We have faith in the mathematical principals. We have faith they are and will always be true.



I have faith in God because of my experiences. I have faith that He will always be true.

Much the same way a person looks at a set of pencils and concludes them to be "4 pencils" I might look at a sunset and conclude it is a glimpse of God's glory. By experience. By faith. By logic. By reason.
troub is offline  
#8 Old 02-07-2007, 11:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
We can all agree that 2+2= 4. We all know that 4^2 can be a symbol for 16 of something. We all don't agree re:God. I'm not saying that heaven or God does or doesn't exist because imo it's totally subjective. 4 stones are not subjective to one individual tho.
gaya is offline  
#9 Old 02-07-2007, 11:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 264
i have faith that god does NOT talk to pat robertson.
scarlet is offline  
#10 Old 02-07-2007, 11:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

guess what?



philosophy 101:



Inductive Reasoning:

math

logic

faith

religion

absolute truths

~thoughts



Deductive Reasoning:

science

~concrete objects



zomz! logic and faith are in the same category!

Yeah, you cannot touch faith, you cannot taste faith, you cannot hear faith. But you cannot touch math, you cannot taste math, you cannot hear math. But how many of us are quick to denounce math because we cannot experience it with our 5 senses? It is a self-proofing, absolute truth - but we accept it. And even use it in our sciences.



Faith isn't as unreasonable as it seems.



I find it ironic that this is how a philosophy class is structured, since inductive and deductive reasoning are forms of 'logic'... This would be rather circular, so I would not say that from this, faith and logic are in the same category. (Perhaps they are in another aspect, but not this one).



Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post

Evolution relies on Biology

Biology relies on Chemistry

Chemistry relies on Physics

Physics relies on Math

Math relies on itself.



Deduction is based on Induction. Our whole reality is faith.



This may be oversimplification for evolution relies on more than just biology, which in turn relies on more than just chemistry, which in turn...



And as a couple clarifications, math relies on more than itself (although I don't really know what it means that math relies on itself). And the other is that deduction isn't based on induction.



Also, what is 'faith based logic'?

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#11 Old 02-07-2007, 11:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

I find it ironic that this is how a philosophy class is structured, since inductive and deductive reasoning are forms of 'logic'... This would be rather circular, so I would not say that from this, faith and logic are in the same category. (Perhaps they are in another aspect, but not this one).

I'm pretty sure troub attends a christian based college so I imagine their classes could be structured differently...not that I know philosophy!
gaya is offline  
#12 Old 02-08-2007, 01:03 AM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by troub View Post




Deduction is based on Induction. Our whole reality is faith.



Troub - I don't mean to sound patronizing at all, sincerely: this is the most intelligent thing that you have ever written (of that which I have read). I'm glad that you wrote it.
flipper is offline  
#13 Old 02-08-2007, 01:10 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet View Post

i have faith that god does NOT talk to pat robertson.



i dont blame him. i wouldn't talk to him either
GhostUser is offline  
#14 Old 02-08-2007, 01:52 AM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

I'm pretty sure troub attends a christian based college so I imagine their classes could be structured differently...not that I know philosophy!



And clearly anyone who attends a predominantly white conservative based Ivy-League school should suffer the same scrutiny on other lines!



What truth is there in anything that you know, other than that which you have been taught? How is your understanding more important, beyond impressing and serving the people who exist in your own idiom?
flipper is offline  
#15 Old 02-08-2007, 08:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

And clearly anyone who attends a predominantly white conservative based Ivy-League school should suffer the same scrutiny on other lines!

Well, it's not really scrutiny but I don't study philosophy. I could see including faith into a philosophy or logic class in a faith based college. I could also see it being left out in a non-faith based college.



Quote:
What truth is there in anything that you know, other than that which you have been taught? How is your understanding more important, beyond impressing and serving the people who exist in your own idiom?

That's pretty much what I was getting at but again, since I don't study philosophy I can't really know if it's the case.



The only parallel I can think of (and I dont know if its a good example) is the study of health sciencesfrom an eastern perspective or a western perspective. I have a couple of friends who attended four year colleges to study acupuncture. Their anatomy and physiology classes include chi, meridian points, etc while my A&P classes did not include those things.
gaya is offline  
#16 Old 02-08-2007, 08:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Logic inductive reasoning, wtf?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#17 Old 02-08-2007, 09:01 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
I need to take a class or read a book about logic cuz I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or asking a question. Also, when ever i come across these terms (deductive and inductive) I have to look them up in dictionary.com because I forget how to define them. Since I never remember that must mean I'm not getting it. Anyone feel like taking the time to break it down for me?



eta: and include an example/application?
gaya is offline  
#18 Old 02-08-2007, 09:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
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.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#19 Old 02-08-2007, 09:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning, where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that the conclusion is true.


"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#20 Old 02-08-2007, 09:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Thanks SS! that makes sense.
gaya is offline  
#21 Old 02-08-2007, 10:55 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,973
>>guess what?



philosophy 101:



Inductive Reasoning:

math

logic

faith

religion

absolute truths

~thoughts



Deductive Reasoning:

science

~concrete objects>>



Either I'm totally misunderstanding you, or something is very fishy about your philosophy 101 course. Science is a complex process involving different types of reasoning, observation, and assumptions. I'm not sure why you place thoughts and concrete objects in either designation. Or math as inductive.



I think SS adeptly lays out the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.



>>math because we cannot experience it with our 5 senses? It is a self-proofing, absolute truth - but we accept it. And even use it in our sciences.>>



I think we leave math intact because it works for us, as a tool. We can tinker around with the assumptions we adopt and come up with different maths, which are useful in different domains.



Religious faith involves a mega-assumption which explains (or has the potential to) everything. I would say that the difference between mathematical assumption and faith is one of degree, not kind, but it's a real difference nonetheless.



ebola
Gnome Chomsky is offline  
#22 Old 02-08-2007, 12:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Logic inductive reasoning, wtf?



Were you commenting about my response or Troub's?

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#23 Old 02-08-2007, 12:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I was commenting on Troub's original list in which logic was put under the heading of inductive reasoning.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#24 Old 02-08-2007, 01:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome Chomsky View Post


I think we leave math intact because it works for us, as a tool. We can tinker around with the assumptions we adopt and come up with different maths, which are useful in different domains.



Religious faith involves a mega-assumption which explains (or has the potential to) everything. I would say that the difference between mathematical assumption and faith is one of degree, not kind, but it's a real difference nonetheless.



ebola



I agree that math and faith have a difference in degree and uses. I suppose my point with all of that was that much of society uses a study that can not be proved outside of itself - and yet it is accepted and used by most every science as truth.



It is mostly in response to those that desire people to explain God without using any faith based reasoning, while yet accepting fully the concepts of mathematics while ignoring the fact that in most cases nothing can prove math formulas outside of math based reasoning. (I can think of a few that can be guessed at - a circumference of a perfect circle will always have the same ratio to the radius, but getting much deeper than that or trying to prove it, and you start needing mathematical principles)



Similar to how a mathematician may go over a new proof with scrutiny and accept or deny that proof in relation to other mathematic principals. In my own life I may go over a "concept of faith" and apply it in relation to other principals I have found to be true in my life experiences, based on that it becomes clear to whether that new concept is very possible, possible, or not possible.



Math does allow us a sort of deduction within the induction in that we can test and apply the numbers in our own terms and own circumstances. Working with God is a little different, in that we cannot test God. Although in hindsight of events much of "the numbers" do appear.



I actually fully believe that the ordered and mathematical physical world restrains itself to certain laws. And that God placed those laws into effect so that the universe would be ordered.



I wish more Christians, et.al. would test their beliefs, not test God, but the beliefs. If a pastor tells you something that sounds iffy - read his source (the bible) - apply it to life, what you have seen. Does anything sound... not right? pray to God to reveal what He meant in that scripture. Like when a minister says that gays are evil, well, read his sources, what is God's nature as appearing in the bible? Does hate speech sound right? Does Rev. John Doe saying that animals in slaughterhouses is justified sound like something the God of the bible would support in first world countries? Use reason - deduce within the inductive.



Someone says something about the big bang to a Christian. Ok. Don't just shrug it off. Test it with scripture. Test it with faith. Test it with things in the world. Come to a deductive conclusion - even if you have to use inductive principles.



A physicist may come to a conclusion using math (inductive) and another person may apply faith (inductive) and a little reason, and come to a differing conclusion.



We just shouldn't shrug off all inductive thinking, accepting only deductive thought - but both should be used to greater levels of understanding.
troub is offline  
#25 Old 02-08-2007, 01:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Maybe I'm not understanding Math. If math can be used (and is) for a repeatable application, than how is it inductive? Or just certain types of maths?
gaya is offline  
#26 Old 02-08-2007, 01:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I don't think a lot of mathematical reasoning is inductive either. There are some inductive proofs though (?).

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#27 Old 02-08-2007, 01:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
I went to Dr. Math and found some good examples.

Quote:
Deductive Reasoning

-------------------

Deductive reasoning is when you move from things you know or assume to

be true - called 'premises' - to conclusions that must follow from

them. The most famous example of deduction is



Socrates is a man.

All men are mortal.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.



The first two statements are premises, and the third statement is a

conclusion. By the rules of deduction, if the first two statements are

true, the conclusion _must_ be true.



Note that this is the case even if the premises appear to be nonsense:



All ducks play golf.

No one who plays golf is a dentist.

Therefore, no ducks are dentists.

Quote:
Inductive Reasoning

-------------------

Inductive reasoning is when you move from a set of examples to a

theory that you think explains all the examples, as well as examples

that will appear in the future. The simplest kind of induction looks

like this:



The sun came up this morning.

The sun came up the day before that.

The sun came up the day before that.

.

.

Therefore, the sun comes up every day, and will come up tomorrow

too.



Note that while a conclusion deduced by deduction _must_be true if the

premises are true, the conclusions induced by induction _may_ be true,

or they may not. For example, people who visit Seattle for short

periods often find that it rains every day of the visit. They could

induce (or infer, or draw the conclusion) that it rains every day in

Seattle - but this wouldn't be true.



In mathematics, inductive reasoning is often used to make a guess at a property, and then deductive reasoning is used to prove that the property must hold for all cases, or for some delimited set of cases.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55620.html



It's starting to make sense.



eta: but that wouldn't necessarily mean math (in and of itself) is based on inductive reasoning...quite the opposite from how i'm perceiving the above. eh, i'm probably wrong. i don't know.
gaya is offline  
#28 Old 02-08-2007, 01:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
I agree, I do not think math is inductive.



From Wikipedia: (on deductive reasoning)

Quote:

Another body of knowledge that relies exclusively on deductive reasoning is mathematics. Though some areas of mathematics deal with uncertainties (notably probability theory), mathematical thought only concerns itself with what can certainly be known about these uncertainties by deduction.


I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#29 Old 02-08-2007, 01:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Yeah the inductive proofs in math are such that you start from some premises and then generelize over a wide number of cases. But I think this generalization does not allow uncertainty - mathematical concepts in such a situation aren't like empirical objects that allow surprises - and so it is not inductive reasoning in the true sense.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#30 Old 02-08-2007, 02:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Although, Troub did say:

Quote:

A physicist may come to a conclusion using math (inductive)...



So I'm not sure if the '(inductive)' was referring to math or to the conclusion the physicist came to.

I believe everything.
nogardsram 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