Language and Logic

Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by lixluke, Nov 3, 2008.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Atopos Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    excellent reasoning. You are right.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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 B
    does 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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Well, the title of this is certainly misleading. Silly semantics having nothing to do with logic.
    1111
     
  9. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
     
  10. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    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 :/
     
  11. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.








    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.


    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2008
  12. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2008
  13. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2008
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It's yin and yang.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Or a pretty deep reference to Tolkein - - -
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It's Tolkien. I've only seen one citation of his own pronunciation of his name and it was TULL-keen.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Sorry. Typo, actually - I do know how to pronounce his name.

    But "ring and yang" is pretty good, you have to admit.
     
  18. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    that what i ment. goodness you really had to correct me like you couldnt have figured a made a mistake. i was probably high.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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.
     
  20. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    yikes! sorry i really need to pay more attention to what i am typing. i apologize, i need to step up my pace.
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Don't worry about it. You're doing fine. We all appreciate your participation and your insights.
     
  22. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Thank you for your patience.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    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"?
     

Share This Page