No logic should be trusted.

[Mr. Dictator]

Of course logic can be trusted. The problem is, no one has bothered to read the human brain's instruction manual.

Its printed, in its entirety, about 1000 yards in our navels. I suggest any confused soul start reading when they get the chance.

 

[homeyg]

I submit that even the most basic axiom could be false, since there could be some massive hole in it that our potentially defective brains cannot realize. Attempts to render logic relevant (such as Occam's Razor) fail because they are presupposed on the validity of axioms.

I don't see what the problem is.

Logic seems to be working out so far.

And if our brains were defective in some way, we surely wouldn't be able to comprehend whatever the defect is, let alone detect if there even is a defect....

 

[Mr. Dictator]

And if our brains were defective in some way, we surely wouldn't be able to comprehend whatever the defect is....

Or maybe we're just defects who can't comprehend whatever our brain is.

Wait, this is the current surrealist dump thread, right?

 

[homeyg]

Or maybe we're just defects who can't comprehend whatever our brain is.

Wait, this is the current surrealist dump thread, right?

I'm not a surrealist.

I believe that we have the capability to understand what the brain is and what exactly it is doing (in terms of the behavior of the universe), but science hasn't gotten there yet.

No one person is going to be able to sit down and philosophize what the human brain is, it's going to take all of or most of the correct information that science has ever provided, and also information that we haven't discovered yet.

Note that, in this previous statement, logic exists and is real.

 

[trader/warrior]

My god, anything could be wrong.

Shut. Down. EVERYTHING.

And stop making me dizzy.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I'm not a surrealist.

I was referring there to the thread as a whole, not throwing around grave insults like "surrealist."

 

[homeyg]

I was referring there to the thread as a whole, not throwing around grave insults like "surrealist."

lol good because I was kinda like......... ...

 

[Farm Boy]

Logic as with all human thought constructions from faith to math is imperfect and limited by humans. Recognizing these limitations, even ones we are not able to precisely delineate, does not render the entire exercise futile. A more constructive course of inquiry might be to try and identify where logic fails to provide an accurate description of the universe, but I think that's a harder trick.

 

[Leoreth]

Obligatory XKCD:

Title text: "Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested."

 

[warpus]

Here's something:

P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

You just used logic to show that logic can't be trusted. Since logic can't be trusted your argument cannot be trusted either, and so logic can be trusted.

 

[Borachio]

This is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem all over again, isn't it?

<sigh>

I didn't understand it the first time.

 

[warpus]

This is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem all over again, isn't it?

<sigh>

I didn't understand it the first time.

It's tricky because it's recursive. But yeah.. I didn't make that connection until now, thanks

 

[Mouthwash]

A solution to this might be that Occam's Razor is based on intuition...

 

[Perfection]

This is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem all over again, isn't it?

No, Godel's Incompleteness is smart and interesting, and it only shows incompleteness, not inconsistency.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

My god, anything could be wrong.

Shut. Down. EVERYTHING.

And stop making me dizzy.

I think this sufficiently covers the point of this thread.
Logic is just a tool for God's sake. Just because you have a hammer you are not guranteed to not miss the nail or get it into the wall properly. Kuddos for wondering about truth. It is a complex topic and there is a lot to be learned.

A solution to this might be that Occam's Razor is based on intuition...

I actually see it as a principle based on statics. The statistic being: The more assumptions you make, the more likely you are to get it more wrong. As every assumption provides an opportunity to be wrong. Hence limit assumptions to the bare necessity your conclusion/point/explanation requires.
In practice, this is a way to not fool yourself with intuitional thought-patterns.
But that is the theory. It doesn't account for a situation, where you maneuver in a field full of uncertainty and lack of factual knowledge (like stuff concerned with humans - social topics) so that a ton of assumptions are a necessary precondition to have a useful relationship to it. That is when intuition may start to do more good than harm (especially regarding social relations, as this is what our intuition is "trained" to handle). But even in such a situation, the Razor is a good guide IMO - as to advice to handle those assumptions critically and carefully.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You know Occam's Razor isn't a claim about the comparative validity of different arguments.
Occam was a logician. He simply gave name to the rule that an argument using less assumptions is better then the same argument using more assumptions. This applies to pretty much all forms of logic, including mathematics and computer programming.

 

[Mouthwash]

Bumpitty bump bump bump.

 

[Joecoolyo]

MY BRAIN HURTS

And thus the logical conclusion is that this thread is bad and you should feel bad.

Next!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Occam was a logician. He simply gave name to the rule that an argument using less assumptions is better then the same argument using more assumptions.

Yeah and I explained why that in practice my work when things are concerned which are not about mere tautology.

 

[Mouthwash]

Read the OP again, I updated.