# Thread: Justification of logic (what should be our)

1. ## Justification of logic (what should be our)

Hi, folks,

As you will have noticed lately, one of our favourite put-downs around here is that the other guy is just pathetically illogical.

That will be true, I think, in this particular case.

Right, but. How would you know? How could you possibly know?

Personally, I'm not aware of any entirely objective way we could justify the kind of logic we use. I'm not even sure we would all agree as to what kind of thing logic is. Some people probably think it's God-given. Others believe logic exists independently of the human mind. And in this case, I ask, where it is to be found exactly if not inside the human mind. In nature, somehow? I would grant them that would be very convenient if that was true. We could start looking for it and maybe one day some idiot would just stumble on it like Newton on the Law of Gravitation (lucky bastard!). Right now, that we're unable to justify the logic that we use makes things like the whole scientific enterprise somewhat entirely dubious. It's unfortunately just a fact of life that all our bright scientists on our planet have to content themselves with the logic they pull out of their mind's arses. Not very terribly serious, that. Hey, chimps, can't we do better than that?! We've discovered Quantum Physics and we still can't explain where from something as basic as the logic we use comes?! Ah, I can imagine the smirk on God's face right now. Come on, chimps, do something!

So, pep talk appart, what do you think we should assume to be the place where the logic we use comes from? Nature? Our mind? God's mind? Some abstract plane only a few of us could hope to reach? Something else?

And please remember it's not a thread on 'infinity'. So, keep to the topic.

Thanks to all.
EB

2. Logic is based on the law of identity, A is A. A tree is a tree, a house is a house, and so on for everything that exists. Everything that exists has a specific identity - it is what it is.

The law of non-contradiction follows from the law of identity. If everything has a specific identity, then everything has all of the properties that it has and none that it does not have. Therefore, nothing can both have and lack the same property at the same time and in the same respect.

The rules of deductive logic are based on the law of non-contradiction. For example:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

To reject the conclusion would be to contradict the premises, which the law of non-contradiction forbids.

Thoughts?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•