There is no reason to believe logic since the justifications for logic are based on the validity of logic and are therefore circular. For instance, the validity of Occam's Razor (being based on fact that the more assumptions one makes the more likely one is to be wrong) is dependent upon Occam's Razor itself, since without it we would have no way of estimating the probability of Occam's Razor being based upon some unknown flaw in our minds. And without such an anchor, our entire perception of logic collapses. Here is a summary:
1. Occam's Razor could be false.
2. Our justification of Occam's Razor is dependent upon Occam's Razor.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of Occam's Razor.
4. Without Occam's Razor logic collapses.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.
Some have accused this argument of being circular; seeing as I am using logic to invalidate itself. To understand this more clearly, let us examine my assertion:
"No logic should be trusted."
You'll notice that it doesn't say that all logic is necessarily false, only that it has a reasonable chance of it. There are two possibilities here:
1. Not all logic is valid, but some of it is, specifically the types I am using to refute logic. This is suggested by the fact that logic disproves it's own validity. Note I do not concede that logic should not be trusted since we would still be unaware of the extent of each type of logic's validity (certain axioms of the same type of logic might contradict each other).
2. Logic is totally wrong, which would invalidate my argument. But because my argument has nothing to do with all logic being objectively false, I have nothing to fear from this.
Also, I will preemptively respond to those who will use the trust argument and claim that having only ever experienced the reliability and consistency of axioms gives them good epistemic reasons for believing that they are, in fact, accurate representations of reality.
This argument is presupposed upon the validity of logic itself and is therefore circular. My point is that we had no way of measuring how likely anything is, since Occam's Razor was our measurement of probability. Who is to say that whatever you have experienced gives you reasons for assuming it is true? It could be logical for patterns to fit your perception of reality until a certain date, say December twenty-first 2012, then collapse. It could be logical that nothing exists, even you (from your standpoint).
Who is to say that you have experienced anything at all? Since there is no means of determining probability (such as Occam's Razor), who is to say that your memories from before the present moment have likely not been artificially created in an instant, and that you will cease to exist in the next? Even if you are what you percieve yourself to be, you have no way of knowing if a moment was real anytime that moment becomes the past. At this point I'm just rambling on about the possibilities.
Anyway, what do you think? Is this a good enough argument?
1. Occam's Razor could be false.
2. Our justification of Occam's Razor is dependent upon Occam's Razor.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of Occam's Razor.
4. Without Occam's Razor logic collapses.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.
Some have accused this argument of being circular; seeing as I am using logic to invalidate itself. To understand this more clearly, let us examine my assertion:
"No logic should be trusted."
You'll notice that it doesn't say that all logic is necessarily false, only that it has a reasonable chance of it. There are two possibilities here:
1. Not all logic is valid, but some of it is, specifically the types I am using to refute logic. This is suggested by the fact that logic disproves it's own validity. Note I do not concede that logic should not be trusted since we would still be unaware of the extent of each type of logic's validity (certain axioms of the same type of logic might contradict each other).
2. Logic is totally wrong, which would invalidate my argument. But because my argument has nothing to do with all logic being objectively false, I have nothing to fear from this.
Also, I will preemptively respond to those who will use the trust argument and claim that having only ever experienced the reliability and consistency of axioms gives them good epistemic reasons for believing that they are, in fact, accurate representations of reality.
This argument is presupposed upon the validity of logic itself and is therefore circular. My point is that we had no way of measuring how likely anything is, since Occam's Razor was our measurement of probability. Who is to say that whatever you have experienced gives you reasons for assuming it is true? It could be logical for patterns to fit your perception of reality until a certain date, say December twenty-first 2012, then collapse. It could be logical that nothing exists, even you (from your standpoint).
Who is to say that you have experienced anything at all? Since there is no means of determining probability (such as Occam's Razor), who is to say that your memories from before the present moment have likely not been artificially created in an instant, and that you will cease to exist in the next? Even if you are what you percieve yourself to be, you have no way of knowing if a moment was real anytime that moment becomes the past. At this point I'm just rambling on about the possibilities.
Anyway, what do you think? Is this a good enough argument?
