Language and Logic

[lixluke]

Logic speaks for itself, but language tends to throw people off track. This is an important description of some ideas, logic behind them, and how language represents them.

First and foremost, there is nothing I put more blind faith into than logic. That means I use and rely on logic with 100% faith for communication and reasoning. What is illogical is to assume that logic is not faith based. Many people know and use logic by default without realizing that their use of logic is based on their faith that logic works as a method of proof and reasoning. Because of my faith in logic, and understanding that logic can only logically be 100% faith based, it will be impossible for me to communicate with anybody that is not using the same basis of reasoning. You cannot logically express a logical conclusion with somebody that is not using logic. Logic is everything.

Because of the nature of language, knowledge is often misunderstood by those who do not understand the logical difference between a statement and the idea behind the statement.


HERE IT IS
There is a difference between me beleiving I know something, and me actually knowing it.

But when I say "I know X", it only means I believe I know X. It doesnt mean I actually know X.

Beleif is an individual's 100% certainty of something. This never implies that what an individual believes to be true is true in actuality.

Linguistically, anytime an individual expresses "I believe X", "I know X", "I am 100% certain of X". All it means is that the person believes he knows for sure that X is true. And it doesnt mean X is actually true.

Actual knowledge only occurs when somebody believes X to be true, and X is true in actuality.

[Atopos]

excellent reasoning. You are right.

[Fraggle Rocker]

First and foremost, there is nothing I put more blind faith into than logic.It is incorrect to call this type of faith "blind faith" and that is a key point that needs to be clarified in all the arguments over faith.

Faith can be a reasoned faith. I have faith in my wife: that she will be sensible, will stand by me, will help lead the family into happiness and prosperity. This is not a blind faith. This is a reasoned faith based upon my empirical observation that she has behaved this way for more than thirty years, including many periods of adversity when a lesser woman would not have been able to stick to her principles.

This is the same kind of faith I have in science. For five hundred years science and the scientific method have been tested extensively, and they have never been falsified. The underlying premise that defines science--that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior--has never been falsified, even though most scientists would be delighted to be on the cover of People Magazine as the person who disproved science.

People who have faith in science are rational people behaving rationally. The probability of science being wrong is even lower than the probability that my wife will behave out of character.

Faith in logic is even more rational than faith in science, because logic is derived from pure abstractions. To say that the statement:All A are Bdoes not imply the statement:All B are A does not require the corroboration of empirical observation. It is a pure abstraction that we use to help us understand how the universe works, it is not a statement about the universe.

So faith in logic is not "blind" faith. It is reasoned faith.

[lixluke]

Reasoned faith? Never heard of it. I suppose any faith in what you beleive in is reasoned faith, and any faith in what you do not believe in is blind faith? So the difference between reasoned faith and blind faith is one's own perception? It is up to the individual to decide whether his faith in Jesus is blind or reasoned? Or is that not allowed because of the reasoned faith that faith in a diety is not rational or reasoned? But faith in one's spose is.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Well, the title of this is certainly misleading. Silly semantics having nothing to do with logic.
1111

[Simon Anders]

[QUOTE]HERE IT IS
There is a difference between me beleiving I know something, and me actually knowing it.

But when I say "I know X", it only means I believe I know X. It doesnt mean I actually know X.
To me this is confusing semantics with your epistemology.
People do mean different things when they use 'know' and 'believe'. To say one believes in something can mean one thinks it is likely, or that most of the times it seems to be so - though it is possible for the same person to have doubt at other times and also varying degrees of certainty.

To say 'I know' means I am certain.

An outsider, of course, may not, and probably will not, be certain because the person says this - depending on their relationship and the outsider's sense of the speaker's expertise, etc. But this is not semantics. Semantically the two words are not the same, though in use they overlap meanings.

Beleif is an individual's 100% certainty of something. This never implies that what an individual believes to be true is true in actuality.

I disagree with the first sentence here. I have said ' I believe _____, but I am not sure.' And a wide variety of similar constructions. So do others. These constructions make sense and run counter to what you are saying. The second sentence I agree with.

Linguistically, anytime an individual expresses "I believe X", "I know X", "I am 100% certain of X". All it means is that the person believes he knows for sure that X is true. And it doesnt mean X is actually true.
And I have exactly the same reaction to the first and second sentence here as I did to the previous two.

Actual knowledge only occurs when somebody believes X to be true, and X is true in actuality. This I agree with. But given that, it is generally very hard to tell what knowledge is. What we consider knowledge today may very well not be tomorrow. Since 'knowledge' as a word tends to be used about consensual beliefs, we tend to be more certain about these beliefs and so it can seem like 'know' is the same. And on an abstract level it is. In practice, since individuals are using the latter word about just themselves, it ends up seeming more like belief. But both individual knowledge and consensual knowledge may turn out to be belief.

Belief and know are not the same as verbs.

[cato]

I believe Faggle rocker was on target with this one.

you perceive the world around you since the moment you have the mental capacity to do so. you make a model of the world based on your experiences, and the experiences you hear from others. there are certain things that most people consider to be good reasons to believe something, and there are thing people consider bad reasons for believing things.

when someone believes something for for good reasons, we consider that rational. when the believe things for bad reasons, we consider that irration, or blind faith.

for example, if I pick a frying pan out of the cupboard, my experience tells me that it would not be hot. moreover, if I pick one off of the stove, I would be careful because my experience tells me it could be hot. it is just a belief that the pan wont be hot while in the cupboard, but it is a rational belief.

this is a trickey one to explain :/

[lixluke]

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS:
The statement "I know" implies certainty.
The statement "I believe" implies uncertainty.

There is no argument that anybody making a statement is communicating an idea. The idea being communicated is irrelevant from the actual words or terms being used or their connotations. What is relevant is the idea of the message.


To claim "I know" does not always imply certainty.
To claim "I believe" does not always imply uncertainty.


Regardless of what I say or how I use words, everything that is to my knowledge true or false is what I believe. To whatever degree of certainty you want to consider, a belief only compasses only whatever is to the extent of your knowledge.

The phrase "as far as I know" is always implied, and therefore never has to actually be stated. Anything and everything you claim to know for sure or claim to believe with whatever degree of certainty always accompanies "as far as I know" because, without stating it, your claim is to the extent of your knowledge.

You believe there is a computer in front of you. Whether you claim to know it for sure (100% certainty) or claim to have whatever degree of certainty. When somebody says I believe X is true or I know X is true, the point is that they are saying the same thing: To the extent of my knowledge/as far as I know, X is true.


The terms I am expressing are for the purpose of clarifying what people mean when they say "I know X is true".
Actuality
Belief
Knowledge

Actuality is that there is a ball in the box. It is true that there is a ball in the box.
Belief is whatever is to the extent of the indiviudal's knowledge. It is to the "individual's knowledge" (belief) that there is or isn't a ball in the box.
Knowledge is when an individual's belief coincides with actuality. This is actual knowledge.








This I agree with. But given that, it is generally very hard to tell what knowledge is. What we consider knowledge today may very well not be tomorrow.
Objective reality/actuality is different from anything we consider.
We might consider something to be true or false. That something being true or false does not change in actuality.


I believe Faggle rocker was on target with this one.

you perceive the world around you since the moment you have the mental capacity to do so. you make a model of the world based on your experiences, and the experiences you hear from others. there are certain things that most people consider to be good reasons to believe something, and there are thing people consider bad reasons for believing things.

when someone believes something for for good reasons, we consider that rational. when the believe things for bad reasons, we consider that irration, or blind faith.

for example, if I pick a frying pan out of the cupboard, my experience tells me that it would not be hot. moreover, if I pick one off of the stove, I would be careful because my experience tells me it could be hot. it is just a belief that the pan wont be hot while in the cupboard, but it is a rational belief.

this is a trickey one to explain :/
A rational belief can be said of somebody claiming that he will not open his closet because a fairy told him there is a flying spaghetti monster in there that will eait him if he opens the closet.

[lixluke]

Here is an example:

Let us assume the following:
1. The statement "I know X is true" = The statement "I am 100% certain X is true".
2. The statement "I believe X is true" = The statement "I am less than 100% certain X is true".

Whether a person says, "I am 100% certain X is true" or "I am less than 100% certain X is true => It is the same thing as saying, "to the extent of my understanding (certainty), X is true."


Without assuming #1 or #2, the fact, is whether somebody claims 100% certainty or less than 100% certainty, either way, it is the person's belief. Anything to the extent of an individual's understanding, whether he feels 100% certain or not, is always a belief.

Thus,
1. To claim "I believe with less than 100% certainty" is a belief.
2. To claim "I know with 100% certainty" is a belief.
3. Anytime somebody states "I believe" or "I know", it means the same thing = "To the extent of my understanding". Either way it is a belief.
4. Actual knowledge only occurs when a belief coincides with actuality.


The statement "I don't know" maybe used in 2 connotations:
A. I am less than 100% certain X is true.
B. I am only completely uncertain of whether or not X is true.

Thus,
1. An individual claiming #A does imply belief.
2. An individual claiming #B implies no belief.

[laladopi]

righteous. in the most literal sense.
logic is the answer of all reasoning, you have to believe both in the ring and yang and understand both sides, that one is rational, and harmonious, therefore knowledge is seeking the root, logic of thoughts and everything.

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . you have to believe both in the ring and yang. . . .It's yin and yang.

[iceaura]

you have to believe both in the ring and yang. . . .
”
It's yin and yang. Or a pretty deep reference to Tolkein - - -

[Fraggle Rocker]

Or a pretty deep reference to Tolkein - - -It's Tolkien. I've only seen one citation of his own pronunciation of his name and it was TULL-keen.

[iceaura]

Or a pretty deep reference to Tolkein - - -
”
It's Tolkien Sorry. Typo, actually - I do know how to pronounce his name.

But "ring and yang" is pretty good, you have to admit.

[laladopi]

It's yin and yang.
that what i ment. goodness you really had to correct me like you couldnt have figured a made a mistake. i was probably high.

[Fraggle Rocker]

that what i ment. goodness you really had to correct me like you couldnt have figured a made a mistake. i was probably high.Sorry, this is the Linguistics board, after all. I don't want people coming here and learning words wrong.

I would have simply corrected the post but I used to do that and was told to stop.

[laladopi]

yikes! sorry i really need to pay more attention to what i am typing. i apologize, i need to step up my pace.

[Fraggle Rocker]

yikes! sorry i really need to pay more attention to what i am typing. i apologize, i need to step up my pace.Don't worry about it. You're doing fine. We all appreciate your participation and your insights.

[laladopi]

Thank you for your patience.

[Billy T]

Wife recieved an Email that claimed N was a common symbol for infinite and so was 8 (when flipped on side). Certainly second is true, but I have no connection between N and infinity. That Email went on to note N+8 in several languages as follows:

English......Night = N + eight (with an e dropped)
German ....Nacht = N +acht
Spanish ... Noche = N + ocho (o for e at end change)
French .... Nuit = N + huit (silent? h added)
Italian ..... Notte = N + otto (o for e at end change)
Portugese. Noito = N + oito

Perhaps there are others?

If there is any subconscious message hidden in this, I would be inclind to think it is that night is not infinitely long.

I.e. Most of the languages I know (only a few) have N as the first letter of their word for "not." So two questions:

1) Is N and common symbol for infinity that I just happen to be ignorant of?
2) How commonly is N the first letter of the word for "not"?

[Fraggle Rocker]

If there is any subconscious message hidden in this, I would be inclind to think it is that night is not infinitely long.These words are all descended from the proto-Indo-European word for "night." It's also noc in Czech and has similar forms in the other Slavic languages. I'll let someone else look it up in Hindi and Farsi. This is one of those basic vocabulary words that has survived for five thousand years and come down into all of our languages, like "me" and ten/decem/desyat/dasha.I.e. Most of the languages I know (only a few) have N as the first letter of their word for "not." So two questions: 1) Is N and common symbol for infinity that I just happen to be ignorant of?I've never heard of it. I'm not a career scientist or mathematician, but I read about it constantly and I've never encountered this symbol.2) How commonly is N the first letter of the word for "not"?That's another Indo-European word that has come down into all of its successor languages. It's nye in Russian. Danish and Norwegian still use nej for "no," but they have a new word, ikke, for "not." I'm not familiar with its origin. In some French syntactical constructions, the compound ne... pas is shortened to just pas, as in pas de probleme, "no problem." But in general you'll find words for no/not/none beginning with N throughout the Indo-European language family, just like words for "night." It's a coincidence. Life is full of coincidences and some people enjoy trying to see something in them that's not there. :)

[Billy T]

...It's a coincidence. ...I suspected that a common ancient root made N the first letter of words for "night" but it is very strange that even with all the evolution of them the remainder (stripped of the initial N) is also still today the word for "eight" almost exactly in so many languages.

While it is pure speculation to think that even subconsciously 8 rolled on its side as infinity and night may be conceptually related, there does seem to be some stabilizing link between "night" and "eight."

Perhaps the link is in myths or superstitions about eight having some "dark power" etc.? However, as you say, it could be simple coincidence, but I suspect that there is some sort of link that helped the word for night still contain word for eight for so many thousands of years in so many languages despite the normal drift of word spellings over the millennia.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I suspected that a common ancient root made N the first letter of words for "night" but it is very strange that even with all the evolution of them the remainder (stripped of the initial N) is also still today the word for "eight" almost exactly in so many languages.It's because the original Indo-European words were so similar. There's your coincidence! The phonetic evolution of proto-Indo-European into its daughter and granddaughter languages follows some pretty clear principles--palatalization, Grimm's Law, et al.--so it's not remarkable that two similar words would end up still being similar in a few of those languages five thousand years later.While it is pure speculation to think that even subconsciously 8 rolled on its side as infinity and night may be conceptually related. . . .According to Wikipedia, creation of the infinity symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinity_symbol) is credited to John Wallis in 1655. There's no record of his reasoning behind the choice, but reasonable speculations include:The very similar Etruscan numeral for 1,000, which was also used to mean simply "many," and was borrowed by the Romans. I don't have the character set, but it looks like a capital C and its mirror image, with a capital I between them, shoved together and touching; sort of a sideways capital theta. A lower-case omega, the last letter in the Greek alphabet. An hourglass (a common appliance in Wallis's era) laid on its side so that it would take infinite time for the sand to flow.In any case, since the technology of printing was already in wide use, a powerful motivator would have been a desire to make life easier for printers by using a character they already had in their set.

In the late twentieth century, American rock star Prince invented a new symbol for his name and distributed the type in a variety of point-sizes to all the publications that would need it. That was not so easy to do three hundred years earlier. Even so, Prince's symbol was never widely adopted and is now a silly footnote in publishing history. He was, instead, derisively called TAFKAP, "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.". . . . there does seem to be some stabilizing link between "night" and "eight."You're just seeing the linguistic world through the filter of the languages you're familiar with, all of which are very closely related. If you look more widely among the Indo-European languages, the stabilization becomes an illusion.Greek nux and okto Czech noc and osem Romanian noapta and opt Russian noch and vosyem Sanskrit nisha and ashta Catalan nit and vuit Albanian natë and tetë Lithuanian naktis and aštuoni Irish oíche and ocht