Comment: A comment on logic - it isn't how you are using it

(See in situ)

A comment on logic - it isn't how you are using it

Logic is not reason.

Aristotelian logic requires by it's nature premises. It is not objective. You can have two sets of people both being completely logical and disagreeing - because that is the exact nature of Aristotelian logic.

I remember the other day that I had some youngster tell me I was being illogical or irrational (another wrongly used term btw). I just grimaced at being trolled into another sophomoric debate - sophormoric debate here being that you can win any argument by defining the terms first to whatever you want them to be. Youngster being defined as someone given to sophomoric debates.

That isn't reason. That isn't objective. That cetainly isn't a search for truth.

It is exactly what Francis Bacon critized in his The New Organon, as opposed to Aristotle's old Organon. It isn't scientific. What you want is not logic, it is objectivity, premises you do not just make up wholesale.

Aristotelian logic has been counted as causing endlessl wars about things that are "logical" on their own terms, but not real in real life.

But it gets worse than premises instead of objective reality. The idea that everything (or every premise - Aristotle tended to merge ontological and epistemological definitions - see logician cited below), is either t/f does not simply invite possible fallacies of the excluded middle, but itself is such.

There can be more than two values for a logic system, and in fact, it works better in many instances for the real world. See:
Jan Łukasiewicz and multivalued sytems

Which brings us to fuzzy systems, which don't put things in crisp sets. Ideally practical, seems more like the real world, and again is not Aristolean.

You worry that this might not be rational? Rationality is a Pythagorean idea that everything is a number or ratio of everything else. In essense, everything has a scale to everything else. It isn't true, there are irrational numbers in the real world. And likewise, it is entirely possible to argue something with a completely different scale and set of premises then you have, and they don't relate. They are irrational.

However, irrational doesn't mean real as in really existing, any more than logical means really existing. They aren't OBJECTIVE.

The terms you want to use is not its logical, or its rational. The term you want to use is it is objective and real.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.