«Home

~logic~ Discovery Or Invention?

I believe logic to be an invention and not a discovery as such. Moreover, logic reflects a consensus and not some universal truth.

Our evolution has a symbiotic relationship with our logic.

We invent our outlook and our logic and we evolve in line with it. Our evolved form, physical and psychological, also biases the direction of our logic.

If we are unaware of this symbiosis, our logic can appear to be absolute and a discovery of something outside ourselves. If we discover anything through logic, it is ourselves -- our values, choices and related evolution.

Hence, the dialectic is useless when arguing religion vs science. They are inventions.

Your thoughts, please. . .

Avatar
Newbie
5 answers

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Roundness is a paradigm. All it means in this case is that we find it convenient to communicate our ideas using that particular sense of geometry. That is deeply anthropological -- a statement about human perception and not about universal truth.

In fact, even according to relativity theory, a particle approaching the earth at close to the speed of light sees a flat earth due to the Lorentz Contraction.

So even in a scientific context, the earth is neither round nor flat or anything in between. What we have are models or descriptions that we purportedly find simple to conceptualise, depending on application. But that sense of what is simple is an historical and politically enforced and established consensus. It is far from an absolute truth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Logic is not an invention but a discovery.As we uncover better understanding of the world we live in, we also discover new and better informed logic.

Example, back in the days when the whole thought the planet earth to be flat, it was against logical reasoning to say that it was spherical because of the seemingly obvious fact that anyone living at the down end of the ball would surely fall off.But as the law of gravity was discovered and applied, so did a new and better informed logic surfaced as well to successfully argue that people can't fall off even if they live down under.

Parameters upon which logical reasoning is based is continually changing as we know more about our universe and how it works.As we discover new informations, we also discover new logic to go with them.IMHO.

0
Avatar
Newbie

^^

Yes, if one contradiction stands (P and not P) any arbitrary proposition follows, making the entire field of logic vacuous. Naive set theory, although it is still widely referenced, has been superseded by some other approaches. It demonstrates just how tenuous the idea of consistency actually is.

We also have incompleteness as per Godels Incompleteness Theorem.

In a similar vein, the set of real numbers is remarkably unreal. It contains an uncountably infinite set of numbers, but only a countable subset of them can actually be defined. The number of possible definitions mathematics is able to make, is countable. This means that the overwhelming part of the set of real numbers have never, and can never, be specified. Yet mathematics relies on them fundamentally, especially in aspects of continuity and calculus.

0
Avatar
Newbie

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.