Tired and sleepy but this thought occured to me before hitting the hay ("hitting the hay"...???). Pardon me if it isn't too coherent. Can logic be biased? Can it fall victim to human perception and be eskwed or is logic infallable no matter which way it is ultimetly concieved or percieved in? Seeing as how we percieve the world through our senses we are open to misconception by our senses....vulernable to false stimulus....logic is then ultimetly born through us through observation. Method of actions that are most efficient and sensible in a given situation.....also the most sensible form of thought but those methods could have taken birth under false stimulus. So can logic be faulty? or it isn't logic if it is? Isn't logic created and decided by its practitioner who, ultimetly, is limited by his/her senses? Then isn't he/her at risk of faulty logic? Or Like Math, logic exists but it must be found and given roles and symbols like math....it must be named and labeled?
i didn't need so many words though. simpler: logical bias == assumptions. Why still bother? Well, logic is valid given the assumptions.... so you can see where assumptions lead. In the case of math and physics for instance, logic based on the assumption of numerical systems and definitions based on that system (and observed phenomenon) can maintain logical consistency and yield highly effective models for practical application.
Interesting question. Let's see where we can go with it. To assume logic is bias, then we must assume that it is subjective, and not a property found outside of an individual thinker. In other words, logical behavior isn't found outside of the human mind, and in still other words: things don't behave according to rules. I don't see that in my environment, but, then again, quantum physics has left us in a lurch. On a quantum level things don't really behave as expected, they behave probabilistically instead of deductively, so we have to ask ourselves - is the universe logical, or is it simply a convienent way that we have invented to describe it? (You can map math onto logic if you are more comfortable with the term) Quantum mechanics changes our paradigm a bit, from: A = B B = C |- A = C to: A most likely = B B most likely = C |- It is possible that A = C It takes all of our deductive logic and reduces (?) it to weak inductive logic. Perhaps logic is bias, in the sense that it is in our own interests to use a system that describes the universe as well as we can understand it, if not perfectly. Maybe we can't do better.
I tend to think that logic is simply logic and just a tool we use to make sense of what we sense. Like all tools it is subject to the use and abuse of it's user. It is quite often quite logical to not use logic and allow illogicality to exist. By Illogical I don't mean negative logic just no logic. For example when watching a fantasy like The lord of the rings, to really enjoy this art form one has to drop the use of logic and accept the illogic portrayed without sitting there analysing every action with our logic.
We can know the rules of the game, because of emerging patterns in small constellations. But take the patterns of another constellation, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away: all men are green and all men are women then all women are green. Perfect logic right there. 'nough said.
Hmm.. you know techinically logic itself isn't biased. It's the results that are biased by the assumptions. I was a little off before.
In this galaxy, men and women do not exist. Indeed, these creatures are either "All women" or "All men". Sets of rules are not biased. Of course not. I understood you right away Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Biased results? Then shouldn't the logic, from which the results stemmed from, be biased in some form. If logic is assumptions then assumption are just that assumptions....they are as practical and sucjective as another observer assumptions are they not? Busted Crunch Nice inclusion of Quantum Mechanics in the mix. I should have thought of that. Quantum Mechanics - the foundation universe of our universe is so unpredictable and like you said it works on probablity. Things are suppose to happen but there are chances they will or won't. This to me sounds like the description of Quantum Mechanics.
No. Logic is a self consistent tool which can be applied to assumptions to reach conclusions based on them. The results are inherently based on the assumptions, but the logic itself is not biased if properly applied. Logic isn't assumptions. It's more like a transform. You can take whatever inputs, slap the transform on them and out pops results that are based on the inputs. The results are as subjective as the assumptions, but the process of reaching that result is NOT subjective if logic is properly applied.
well in that case through a Christian point of view on this topic, God would only have an unbias logic right?
What on earth has being a christian or God got to do with Logic bias. Why does religion have to be considered in every post on this board? There are many forms of logic and religious logic is only one of them.
That's a good question. I can confirm that it is rational largely on faith in myself and my ability to satisfactorally model my environment such that I continue to survive. My evidence is that I perceive that I have survived thus far and the entities I percieve as separate from myself seem to confirm that I can successfully logicificate. That's the whole thing isn't it? Well, besides that non-contradiction seems to be the biggest thing. That gets complicated though especially if you're talking about abstracts that are purely abstract based like the "personal" aspect of your experience. It is difficult for me to tell if you're being consistent with yourself until I get to know you. Personally, I think it's important to keep in mind the following distinction regarding logical consistency. (first) There is nothing saying that thoughts can't be contradictory - in fact, I believe it's inherent to consciousness that thought has at least a smidge of inconsistency; (second) and nature won't allow a contradiction of physical space (except possible under incredible circumstances like black holes or whatever). So I'm rambling because I'm still trying to figure out the answer. I read something very pertinent to the issue today in Discover Magazine. I think it was number 8 on their "top 100 science stories of 2003". Talking about complexity of proofs. What is a proof they ask, when no one in the world besides the person who wrote it has a clue what they mean... when the worlds experts evaluate the proof for years and come up with "we don't know if it's right". Consistency eh? Hmmm. I'm all flustered about it now. Maybe later I'll get it clear in my head.
It's interesting to take a little peak at the Star Trekian conflict on this issue. On one hand we have the Vulcan Spock, reknown for his fastidious use of logic and in contrast we have the emotional and sometimes irrational human Captain Kurk. We have the developement of the android Beta (???) and his use of the emotion chip. All three are exploring the use of logic. In fact the star trek people make a joke of it at most times. We know that the Spockian mentality has huge areas of failure and so to does the human Kirk. If you really think about it the question posed as to how to apply logic properly is about as difficult to answer as the logic of how the universe came to be from nothing. Extremely hard to answer I think.
I doubt there is any. So if logic is external to the mind and is only filtered through the human mind (i.e Math) there are hopes of it being applied in the right manner but that never happens because no two minds think alike. Logic is percieved differently and contradicts. It maybe be too complex to be applied or there is no such nothing, logic is nothing more than a name of attempts at rationalization of a world that isn't clear to us. Like a leaky pipe who we keep trying to patch yet water still seeps through because we haven't figured out how to turn off the water in the first place. So if one is answered eventually can the other be answered as well?
I think there are at least a few important things to contemplate. I suppose logic is about the consistency of concepts as they relate to one another in a system. So when you make constructs, how applicable are they to the tao? The idea the 1=1 is wholly self-consistent with itself, but how consistent is it with "reality"? That is a wholly weird question really, as on some level, it IS applicable and some it is not. For instance if I want to know how much energy (in predefined terms) it take to go 2 units instead of 1, then 1 becomes a highly practical construct and can provide a very precise description of the amount of energy you need to move two units. The abstract "rub" so to speak is that you can only say that it was consistent with itself. Basing an estimate on historical data, one can also be highly confident (to a degree limited by the amount of pertinent available data) of future results. In this case, logic is no leaky pipe. Interestingly enough you can actually use logic to know things about which you do not otherwise know, and predict them accurately before ever experimenting to validate your results. The danger is calling something a "proof". That's somewhat of a misnomer I'd say, as nothing can really ever be "proven".. it can just be thought of with increasing levels of confidence. Of course, this is just my attempt and being logical and might be all full of holes eh? I suppose that's the thing. If you don't understand my logic it doesn't do YOU much good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hehe. This is somewhat why I phrased my opening the way I did. Because you have a "system" in your head. You can say something very logical that may have no applicability (and may even be contradictory) to the world external to you whatsoever, yet is a perfectly logical in your system. So really there are two major deals: If you're trying to apply logic to your understanding of a physical system using formalized mathematics, that's one thing. If you're talking about if something makes sense in terms of how concepts related to one another in a system of them, that's a differnent but related thing. Meh, that's messy but hopefull useful.
