Prove Reason Wrong!

[Fifty]

Everything in the universe comes from something else, everythings 'recycled' including the atoms that make up our bodies. Everything except the universe itself. According to our reason, logic and science, the universe seems to have popped into existence from nothing and nowhere.

Ok, but how does reason/science/logic necessitate the universe having a cause and/or something from which it came?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Can't we reason that it was always there and is just, instead of coming from 'somewhere', just a changing entity... like everything else?

You could say that if you want, but simply declaring that the universe was 'always there', isnt reason logic and science.

Ok, but how does reason/science/logic necessitate the universe having a cause and/or something from which it came?

Science and logic are based on predictability, causation. Reason in our day to day lives tells us that everything comes from something else.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

So are you trying to say love isn't "real," that it's all a delusion people create to feel secure? Because I'm not sure I follow you; you sound like you've neither loved nor been hurt or are trying to come across that way.

How is it not real, even as I explained it?

Ask yourself why you're in 'love' with who you might be with, or anyone really, and yes love is real, and really it is ultimately self-interested. The delusion is when people tell themselves its something more special, even beyond reason and logic, completely selfless and all that. Seeing it for what it is doesn't make it less real or special or noble or whatever though.

You could say that if you want, but simply declaring that the universe was 'always there', isnt reason logic and science.

But reason and logic woud insist that we can never really know, but we can reason that since something can hardly come from nothing, the concept of there being a nothing before something isn't very reasonable, that even if the universe was a different state than it is now, the state it might've een before this state was still the universe, still something.

 

[Fifty]

Science and logic are based on predictability, causation.

While that is surely true for most areas of science, if I'm not mistaken (and I certainly could be!) our normal notion of causation is not scientifically accurate in certain contexts (I'm thinking of QM). I guess I just don't see how a breakdown of standard notions of causation in certain contexsts constitutes a violation of science.

Reason in our day to day lives tells us that everything comes from something else.

Well what seems evident in our everyday lives isn't necessarily scientifically accurate. I mean when I just sit on the beach and just look, it seems on the surface reasonable to suppose that the world is flat. Doesn't mean that it's being spherical constitutes a violation of science/reason. Far from it! Rigorous application of reason and science is so powerful precisely because it shows us ways in which our everyday notion of what is reasonable may be wrong (and not really reasonable).

 

[mrt144]

Simple concept. Prove an instance in which reason/logic/science is wrong and something else is right.

Please be through, aviod weak examples such as "God exists, therefore reason is wrong" (even if God exists how can you prove he is an unreasonable God) or "I had an intuitive experience that cannot be explained by reason" (There is plenty of reason to believe that the intuitive response is reasonable and rational).

If you're going to post here please play along and try to disprove reason as something that can explain all things (rather than saying, "Oh yeah, YOU prove reason is right" (don't worry people will inevitably try to prove it so anyway). Also, saying "Something beyond reason cannot be proven because it's not reasonably" is a copout, do better than that!

No spam, personal attacks, etc.

Have fun!

it costs less money to society to give homeless people apartments for free and provide jobs then it is to give them nothing.

 

[aneeshm]

The universe. According to reason, logic and science, it shouldnt be here, but it is.

Shankar would disagree.

 

[CartesianFart]

WHY MOST FORMS OF REASON ARE FALLACIOUS AND THUS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
By: Fifty Q Fiftyson

An argument that begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Most forms of reason are inductive (including science). You see that all ravens are black, you assume that the next raven you'll see will be black. You notice that falling bodies on earth follow the dictates of gravity, you make the conjecture that future falling bodies will follow the dictates of gravity. Inductive reasoning underlies pretty much every process of reason we utilize. The one possible exception would be proof in math and formal logic, although even those are goverened at least partially by an inductive belief that their validity will not change randomly.

That said, how does one justify the validity of induction? The only way I can think of is to say "well it has always worked". WAIT A SEC!!!! That's using induction to justify induction! You can't do that! It's a friggen fallacy!

Therefore reason is wrong, and we should all just throw up our hands and live on sustainable communes.

Thank you for your time.

Fifty Q Fiftyson, PhD
Logician, Philosopher, Sex Pig

All philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.
- Ambrose Bierce, via FL2's sig

Reading Rudolph Carnap is surely a miss by most posters in civfanatics.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

While that is surely true for most areas of science, if I'm not mistaken (and I certainly could be!) our normal notion of causation is not scientifically accurate in certain contexts (I'm thinking of QM). I guess I just don't see how a breakdown of standard notions of causation in certain contexsts constitutes a violation of science.

By 'certain contexts', do you mean that youd be willing to accept that a universe might pop into existence from nothing, but not, lets say, a coffee cup?

Well what seems evident in our everyday lives isn't necessarily scientifically accurate. I mean when I just sit on the beach and just look, it seems on the surface reasonable to suppose that the world is flat.

Until you begin to notice that ships dissapear on the horizon from the bottom up

Doesn't mean that it's being spherical constitutes a violation of science/reason. Far from it! Rigorous application of reason and science is so powerful precisely because it shows us ways in which our everyday notion of what is reasonable may be wrong (and not really reasonable).

Agreed, but there are limits to reason and science, just as there are limits to everything else. Our reason, logic and science are pretty good, they take care of us all the way to a few moments after Creation, but thats where they stop, because thats the boundary of the universe in which theyre able to exist and function.

 

[Souron]

You should always listen to reason. Being irrational can lead to otherwise avoidable suffering and death.

The only situation were reason does not yield the right answer is with insufficient information. That is if reason based on limited information leads us to one course of action, but the best course of action is provably something else (given more information), then reason fails. But since we cannot know what we don't know, this failure of reason is completely useless to us. At best, it reminds us always to doubt.

 

[Souron]

Just thought of something else:

What we believe impacts our behavior. Belief is an emotion, and like all emotions it sometimes yields an illogical response. If that response is in someway harmful or undesirable, then we should avoid it. But that means that we should change what we believe. Often what we believe is based on reason. So logically, we should abandon reason, so that we avoid the undesirable emotional of that belief.

For example, imagine a society that burns heretics. Imagine that the priests in this society are out to find every heretic alive and burn him at the steak, and the don't care if they accidentally burn non-heretics in the process. (After all, they are only freeing them from the suffering of earth to go to Heaven; they are doing a favor to the believers by burning them too.) So in such a society it is extremely important to be a pious believer, and act like it in every way. If you are not a believer, then you may be prone to slip up, which would be bad. (Please accept the premise that it would be bad if you die). Now assume that this is a stable society and there is nothing you can do to change it. Now assume that somehow (it doesn't matter how) logic contradicts this religion. Now in this case it is logical to be a pious believer in this illogical religion.

 

[Fifty]

By 'certain contexts', do you mean that youd be willing to accept that a universe might pop into existence from nothing, but not, lets say, a coffee cup?

Yep, and I don't see how that's inconsistent with science/reason/logic.

Until you begin to notice that ships dissapear on the horizon from the bottom up

Indeed, but the point still stands generally.

Agreed, but there are limits to reason and science, just as there are limits to everything else. Our reason, logic and science are pretty good, they take care of us all the way to a few moments after Creation, but thats where they stop, because thats the boundary of the universe in which theyre able to exist and function.

Well of course they're going to stop at the creation of the universe. But that doesn't mean they are limited. It just isn't meaningful to talk about "before the creation of the universe". That's a nonsensical utterance, something akin to "a married bachelor" (when using the literal definition of these terms). As for the actual moment of creation, I still don't think you've shown convincingly that it violates science/logic/reason.

 

[Samson]

There was an article in the new scientist dealing with this topic. It is April 14th 2007 p30-33. If you have an online subscription it is here but I cannot get it from their. I shall try and summarize it, but it not my field so no promises.

Kochen and Specker showed that every statement about a quantum system must either depend on a host of assumptions, or refuse to obey the standard rules of logic. This does not cause problems on the small scale where QM is used to design objects, but causes problems for quantum cosmology. For example, for the universe to be real it must have been cast into that state by an external observer, but as the universe includes everything, there can be no external observer. To try and achieve a “real” universe Chris Isham of the Imperial college, london, looked at alternative topos [1] to Boolean algebra. He has identified the topoi associated with quantum theory. It is distributive [2] but does not have simple truth and falsity.

Find the paper here, I shall have a look at it and see if I can update this answer any, but I an a bit out of my depth.

[1] Set theory is an example of a topoi. It is a group of objects that have there own set of logic.

[2] Boolean operators are distributive as the statement "A and B or A and C" is equivalent to "A and (B or C)". Apparently this is not the norm for other topoi.

[EDIT] I was slightly inncorrect when I said I was a bit out of my depth. Looking at that paper I am so far out of my depth that I cannot add anything. I can but hope someone else here knows a bit more about it than me.

 

[aneeshm]

For example, for the universe to be real it must have been cast into that state by an external observer, but as the universe includes everything, there can be no external observer.

This may be way off the mark, but

SHANKAR STRIKES AGAIN!

 

[punkbass2000]

The universe is as real as it gets.

 

[aneeshm]

I've just come up with an (admittedly contrived) example that may meet the OP's requirements.

The feminine question.

Simply put, an unbiased study of history will force you to conclude that women are inherently inferior to men. Whether this is right or wrong remains to be conclusively "proven" (and will remain so probably till the end of time), but this defies conventional wisdom.

 

[Fifty]

Simply put, an unbiased study of history will force you to conclude that women are inherently inferior to men.

How so?


10 CHARACTERS

 

[punkbass2000]

Simply put, an unbiased study of history will force you to conclude that women are inherently inferior to men.

This premise is flawed.

 

[aneeshm]

This premise is flawed.

OK, so an unbiased study of history can't be done. Any other objection?

@ Fifty

Because 95%+ of the great figures of world history have been men.

 

[Fifty]

Because 95%+ of the great figures of world history have been men.

How is that indicitive of men being inherently superior?

edit: and how do you measure greatness?

 

[warpus]

Science and logic are based on predictability, causation. Reason in our day to day lives tells us that everything comes from something else.

Uhm.. that is blatantly false.

Have you missed the advances in science in the last 50 years or so? Never heard of quantum physics?

Reality is unpredictable and nondeterministic. What you say is totally false.