A Logical Discourse

[BlueStar]

In philosophy at college we covered lots of this kind of stuff, including Aristotle. And even at the time, I wondered...

Hasn't our understanding of the world changed significantly since these guys were racking their brains trying to figure everything out with their intellect?

The implicit assumption in their logic appears to be rooted in the notion that we live in a world of solid objects which can be categorised and understood with mind. However, we now know that this is an illusion and the seeming solidity of objects in the world is a sensory delusion. Everything in the material world is in fact 99.9999999999999% empty space (I didn't add all those 9s to be funny, I believe there is in fact 13 of them ).

Soooo...to me, the reasoning of Aristotle and others is akin to Plato's cave. It's like creating a science examining and detailing and categorising the images on the cave wall, without having any idea of the source of them. It's kind of pointless unless you know what's creating the images.

The notion of identity as purported by Aristotle doesn't sit with me. It's based on mental fabrications and stories. We slap a label on things: 'tree', 'cat', 'dog' and then think we know them. But take a tree and really show me what the essence of 'tree' is. Ultimately it's just a formation of energy and information on the quantum level. Same with 'cat' and 'dog'. And 'person'. We label them for ease of communication, but this 'identity' that we give it is just story. Maybe it's just me.....but I can no longer accept any story about myself, others or the world as being ultimately true. It's just restless mind grasping onto the shadows on the wall, trying to make sense of something which is just a pale reflection of an invisible source.

Those are my feelings. All differing perspectives are relevant and necessary.

[Logio]

P.D. Ouspensky in his magnum opus 'The Fourth Way' goes deeply into this he basically posits that a thing's identity may not be what it seems. I can agree with this...however, I have a difficulty approaching the idea that A is not A. I believe that the logical construction A = A must be true by definition; that change has a profound affect on how the mind grasps this concept: an object is not the same a nanosecond ago...the concept of identity moves with its object through time...not campared to what it used to be in the past.

Respectfully,

Nathan

[BlueStar]

I totally get you. And from certain perspectives you are absolutely correct.

I'm just playing devil's advocate and asking can we really KNOW what A is, beyond what it appears to be? On the quantum level it's just a wave of energy oscillating at a certain frequency, but is it really any different to B, which is a wave of energy from the same field oscillating at a minutely different frequency? They both come from the same source and return to it. We see the effects or manifestations through our sense perceptions and think we know a thing. But I'm not so sure.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. My brain doesn't do logical very well. But I'm fascinated by quantum theory and strive to understand that which I don't think can be fully understood.

[Logio]

Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes.

Description of Post Hoc

A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. For example, suppose Jill, who is in London, sneezed at the exact same time an earthquake started in California. It would clearly be irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster, since there is no reason to suspect any causal connection between the two events. While such cases are quite obvious, the Post Hoc fallacy is fairly common because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events. For example, a person who has her computer crash after she installs a new piece of software would probably suspect that the software was to blame. If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash because it was installed before the crash she would be committing the Post Hoc fallacy. In such cases the fallacy would be committed because the evidence provided fails to justify acceptance of the causal claim. It is even theoretically possible for the fallacy to be committed when A really does cause B, provided that the "evidence" given consists only of the claim that A occured before B. The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty Generalization in that it involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. In the case of the Post Hoc fallacy, that leap is to a causal claim instead of a general proposition.

Not surprisingly, many superstitions are probably based on Post Hoc reasoning. For example, suppose a person buys a good luck charm, does well on his exam, and then concludes that the good luck charm caused him to do well. This person would have fallen victim to the Post Hoc fallacy. This is not to say that all "superstitions" have no basis at all. For example, some "folk cures" have actually been found to work.

Post Hoc fallacies are typically committed because people are simply not careful enough when they reason. Leaping to a causal conclusion is always easier and faster than actually investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps tend to land far from the truth of the matter. Because Post Hoc fallacies are committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding them is careful investigation. While it is true that causes precede effects (outside of Star Trek, anyways), it is not true that precedence makes something a cause of something else. Because of this, a causal investigation should begin with finding what occurs before the effect in question, but it should not end there.

Examples of Post Hoc:

1. I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those laces must be good luck...if I keep on wearing them I can't help but win!

2. Bill purchases a new PowerMac and it works fine for months. He then buys and installs a new piece of software. The next time he starts up his Mac, it freezes. Bill concludes that the software must be the cause of the freeze.

3. Joan is scratched by a cat while visiting her friend. Two days later she comes down with a fever. Joan concludes that the cat's scratch must be the cause of her illness.

4. The Republicans pass a new tax reform law that benefits wealthly Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a nose dive. The Democrats claim that the the tax reform caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.

5. The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.

6. Jane gets a rather large wart on her finger. Based on a story her father told her, she cuts a potato in half, rubs it on the wart and then buries it under the light of a full moon. Over the next month her wart shrinks and eventually vanishes. Jane writes her father to tell him how right he was about the cure.

Any opinions on this fallacy? Do you have any other good examples?

Nathan

[Narnia]

Identity is the fine line of separation and what makes everything different from personalities to molecules.

[Logio]

Identity is the fine line of separation and what makes everything different from personalities to molecules.

Yes, identity is a very useful thing...but history shows that this line of separation can also cause division.

Nathan

[Narnia]

Yes, identity is a very useful thing...but history shows that this line of separation can also cause division.

Nathan

Yes, this too true and also very sad - but at last we can see the differences and accept them for what they are so there is no division, just difference .... it is what it is.

[Logio]

It must be said that two things with identical properties cannot be one and the same thing when separated by space...which according to relativity are also separated by time.
Physicists say one particle can be in more than one spatial place at in one timeframe of reference -- but that two particles cannot be in one place at the same time. One would think that if a particle is in two different places that they should conceivably be two different things rather than one.


Nathan

[Logio]

DEDUCTIVE REASONING VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning are two methods of logic used to arrive at a conclusion based on information assumed to be true. Both are used in research to establish hypotheses.

Deductive Reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations.

Inductive Reasoning takes events and makes generalizations.

If-then Deductive Reasoning is how scientists (and other people!) can test alternate hypotheses. Making deductions is important when we cannot directly observe a cause, and can only observe its consequences. This kind of reasoning can be modeled by the following:

If ...

Then...

But...

Therefore...

For example, we might hypothesize that "The color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure."

And so we could test this hypothesis using deductive reasoning:

If the color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure; then all purple minerals should have the same crystal structure. But purple amethyst has a hexagonal structure and purple fluorite has an isometric structure (determined by observations). Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported or strengthened.

Inductive Reasoning is essentially the opposite of deductive reasoning. It involves trying to create general principles by starting with many specific instances. For example, in inductive geometry you might measure the interior angles of a group of randomly drawn triangles. When you discover that the sum of the three angles is 180° regardless of the triangle, you would be tempted to make a generalization about the sum of the interior angles of a triangle. Bringing forward all these separate facts provides evidence in order to help support your general statement about the interior angles.

This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it.

Inductive Reasoning progresses from observations of individual cases to the development of a generality.

(Inductive Reasoning, or induction, is often confused with deductive thinking; in the latter, general principles or conditions are applied to specific instances or situations.) Inductive reasoning, or induction, is the process by which a general conclusion is reached from evaluating specific observations or situations.

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.

Inductive: If a child puts his or her hand into a bag of candy and withdraws three pieces, all of which are red, he or she may conclude that all the candy is red.

Inductive: Jimmy Hendrix, Martha Washington, Rosalind Franklin, and John Wayne are all dead. Therefore, all men are mortal.

Deductive: All cars have tires, therefore your car has tires.

Deductive: All men are mortal. Ms. Wilcox is a woman. Therefore, Ms. Wilcox is immortal (ha, ha).

Inductive: A person drives down a particular road at rush hour several times and finds the traffic terrible each time. Therefore, this is a good road to avoid at rush hour.

Deductive: Dobermans are dogs. Max is a Doberman. Max is a dog.

Inductive: Well, I've observed many patients receive that drug combination, and I've never seen any problems with it. Therefore, this is not a clinically important drug interaction."



Nathan

[Rana]

ohhh man ..thanks seriously for the brain massage ..some really neat stuff heya ..

[Logio]

ohhh man ..thanks seriously for the brain massage ..some really neat stuff heya ..

Thanks. I like that stuff a lot.

Nathan

[brother]

Might there be instances where doing the illogical actually is the most logical?

[Logio]

Might there be instances where doing the illogical actually is the most logical?

Absolutely...but who's to say that there isn't a higher logic to it....like String Theory perhaps.

Nathan

[Logio]

ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE The words "abstract" and "concrete" are used loosely in everyday speech. Concrete terms are logically those terms which refer to sensible particulars. A particular is an individual that is of a certain kind; and being of a certain kind is a member of a class. Sensible particulars are apprehended at once by sense-perception and by the intellect unless we are conceptually blind. Then these are apprehended only by the sense.
Such conceptual blindness occurs when the sensible individual thing is apprehended by one sphere of sense-perception and not by another, as when that which is perceived is not understood at all. for example, a person who is conceptually blind in his or her sense of touch may be able to identify the object by the sense of smell. This happens when a person cannot identify the kind of object it is by touching it, but can do so by smelling it. When it is just touched by this person, the individual sensible thing is a raw individual, perhaps in some way familiar, as having been touched before, but without an identity, a name.
When we are not conceptually bind, the terms "flower" or "pencil" name certain things that are both perceived and also understood as being of a certain kind. Human apprehension differs radically from the purely sensible apprehension of brute animals that do not have intellects. For them, the world consists of raw individuals. We cannot imagine how the world of sensible objects appears to them.
In human apprehension, which is both sensitive and intellectual, the abstract object of thought is one that cannot be instantiated. We call the object of thought abstract if we cannot give particular instances of it that are sensible.
Such words as "freedom" or "justice" name objects of thought that cannot be perceptually instantiated. They are, therefore, abstract in their referential significance.
In short, concrete terms are those which can be perceptually exemplified or instantiated; abstract terms are those which cannot be perceptually exemplified or instantiated. They refer to objects that are purely objects of conceptual thought.

Nathan