The Ontological-Epistemological Link

If I understand the meaning of the following, I consider it absurd.

A claim that we cannot rely on the laws of logic is a claim that we cannot rely on any mathematical theorems, any of the laws of physics, and/or any of the engineering marvels of the modern world.

A very complex, but flawed, proof based on logic could initially be accepted as valid and later be discredited when the flaw was discovered. This is different from the laws of logic being revised.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is logical: if I take one aspirin, it helps to reduce pain from a headache. If I take two aspirin, it helps reduce pain from a headache a good bit more - feels like twice as much, actually. Therefore, if I take 50 aspirin, it will help to reduce pain from a headache a WHOLE LOT more. Logical, but false, since actual experience is often non-linear. Was the reasoning flawed? I don't think so - not UNTIL experience taught us something to alter our use of logic to incorporate non-linearity. Which it presumably has a more difficult time handling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The onamota-pissawhat link?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A classic example of what I am suggesting is the simple fact that the very existance of the universe is in it's self at this moment in our intellectual evolution illogical. According to the logic of declaring an illogicality as impossible the universe is impossible to be existant.
Fortunately the universe has no obligation to conform with our sometimes narrow logical view. If it did, it would not be a possible existance.

So what is wrong?
Is it our inadequate logic of declaring the illogical impossible or is the universe wrong for existing despite such logical impossibilities?

Just because we don't understand the logic doesn't make something illogical or impossible. It just simply means we don't understand the logic....that's all.

 

But many squares can make a circle (though not a perfect one), the computer depends on this (or at least computer graphics)....

 

Quantum Quack: You are missing the point of this thread. We are not discussing physics. This thread is about logic.

 

Dinosaur:

This is another great point, yes. Logical proofs require no more proof than what is found in the statement.

Quantum Quack:

This is only applicable to empirical things and the logical connections we make. Necessarily impossible things, those which violate the laws of logic, are fine to reject outright.

In what way are "absolute squares" and "absolute circle" absurdities? They may not exist in real life, but they are valid mental abstractions to deal with. Here's a more "down to Earth" non-contradiction issue: A horse cannot be, at the same time and in the same manner, a banana tree.


Dinosaur:

Excellent post.

Onefinity:

1. Empirical matter.

2. Technically, 50 aspirin -do- work 50 times more powerfully than one aspirin, but the body can simply not stand such power.

Hapsburg:

Ontology - The study of being and existence.
Epistemology - The study of truth.

The Ontological-Epistemological Link - An argument presented by Prince James regarding the link with existence/non-existence (ontology) with truthhood/falsehood (epistemology).

Quantum Quack:

In what way is the universe illogical?

Cyperium:

Not the same as what I'm speaking of.

 

But what I said was, the logic that 50 aspirin make a headache feel 50 times better would be false. Please don't confound the argument by taking it out of context.

 

I don't think that truthhood/falsehood is what epistemology is. I think epistemology is about how we know. And that is not the same.

 

I still hold that ontology is secondary to epistemology. It's a presumptuous underling.

 

Onefinity:

Technically, it does make a headache feel "50 times better", but then one dies from it. Ontop of that, this is an abuse of logic as it is an empirical matter.

Onefinity:

All discussions of "how we know" require a notion of truth and falsehood, do they not?

wesmorris:

Partially. Ontology also deals with Materialism v. Idealism v. Dualism and rightfully, epistemology requires a notion of "existence" in order to work, hence one could view epistemology as an offshoot of ontology.

 

First you must know of something in order to contemplate it. You cannot consider what is until you presume to know something of it.

 

Wesmorris:

But it must also exist before it can be known.

 

Yet most of what we know is niether true nor false, and yet to be determined fully.

To take a position of either rather than "don't know" forces the ultimate truth to buried in bias and preconceptions.

 

Quantum Quack:

If nothing else, the content of our presumptions has some foundation in reality, does it not?

 

Irrelevant, as all consideration of ontology is purported in terms of knowledge.

 

Good thread starter Prince James. I have to say that I dislike all this square and circle nonsense: a square has ninety degree angles and a circle doesn't, making them two different objects altogether. There can never be a square circle or a circular square.

 

Wesmorris:

Yet all considerations of epistemology are purported in terms of existence.

Darkman:

That is exactly what I mean. The square-circle cannot exist because it is completely and utterly impossible.

 

Oh? Since when? How so?

How do you know?

Hehe.

How was the last question above purported in terms of existence?

That either of us exists can only be explained through knowledge. That either of us knows something has little to do with whether or not we exist.

 

wesmorris:

The question "how do you know" requires existence of anything to have knowledge about, as well as existence of the self to contain knowledge. Without such, the question cannot even be spoken.

Tell me, my good man, if we did not exist, could we know a thing?