Re^16: Musing on Monastery Content

[BrowserUk]

in reply to Re^15: Musing on Monastery Content
in thread Musing on Monastery Content

Sir! Your logic is flawed. Even though you cannot see it. Your logic is flawed.

The flaw in your logic, is that you cannot conceive of there being a flaw in your logic. Therefore, your logic makes no allowance for the possibility of there being a flaw, and in doing so, creates the flaw. Not only can you not conceive of it, and therefore not see it. Your total confidence in your system of logic means that when the spectre of the flaw is raised, you immediately attempt to apply your logic to disprove it's existance. And naturally, you succeed.

The only way for you to fix the flaw in your logic, is to discard it; and then use other peoples logic to analyse your own.

Only once you have applied sufficient other systems of logic to your own system, with earnest and true endevour, and succeded in re-creating your system using their's, will you be in a position to counter their objections to your system, in their own terms.

Only then will you have the ammunition with which to prove the verasity and accuracy of your system, in a way such that they can accept it.

When you have done this enough times that others begin to support your system with theirs, and adapt their's to your's, then you will have cured the flaw in your logic.

You see, no matter that you couch your system in terms that are both familar and classical. If your interpretation of those terms, and your application of them, does not conform to the classical applications, then your system is indecipherable to others, and so, flawed.

Of course, in the process of analysing and accessing your system using other systems, you may discover other flaws in your own, or more benefits in those other systems.

In short, you may decide that your system of logic is flawed. Which it is.

[apotheon]

There's only one "system of logic", though there are many ways of representing logic. Logic is not a system that is invented — it is a set of principles that is discovered.

Aside from that, I'm entirely cognizant of the possibility of having made a mistake in my logic. I have yet to see someone actually point it out logically, however. In case you're wondering, your circular argument is not a case of a flaw being pointed out logically. I'd expect a programmer to know these things.

[BrowserUk]

There's only one "system of logic",

Systems of Logic.

Boolean Logic.

Inductive Logic

Propositional Logic; Predicate Logic; "Furthermore, there are other systems of logic: three-valued systems, many-valued systems, fuzzy logic, to name a few."

• Aristotelian logic
• Mathematical logic
• Philosophical logic
• Multi-valued logic
• Ternary logic
• Fuzzy logic
• Hoare logic
• Computability logic;
• College logic
• Hybrid logic
• Interpretability logic
• Provability logic
• Faith

That last one gives us an insight to all the others, and the comman flaw in all of them.

It is easily recognised that in all 'system of faith' (I'll limit my interpretation of that phrase to 'religions', though it's hardly more limiting), there are within any given religion, differences of interpretation. Even those that purport to derive their fundemental tenants from the words of a single, undisputed text, there are still many interpretations. Hence we have extremist X, fundementalist X and mainstream X, where X can be substituted by any collective term for any religion or sub-religion.

At the extremes, these belief systems do not allow for any other interpretation. So, Darwinists and Creationists both believe their view is so obvious and fundemental, that all other beliefs are simply wrong. Even within the most narrowly defined of fundementalist religious groupings, there are factions, Within those factions, flavours of interpretation.

In reductio ad absurdum, each individual's belief system is the correct interpetation, and all others are flawed to a greater or lesser degree.

Faith has nothing to do with logic? Wrong. Absolute belief in any system of logic, is faith.

And so, to the "circular argument" and your congnisance of the possibility of a flaw. If you are so congnisant, then you must accept that any judgement you make on the basis of your logic, can be flawed.

Whenever you find fault with someone else's logic, that judgement is based upon your own tenants of logic. If you are cognisant of the possibility of a flaw in your logic, then you must accept that your judgement may be flawed. In other words, it is possible that the other guy is correct.

If you are not cognisant of that, or if you are, but refuse to accept the logic that your judgement could be wrong, your system of logic is nothing more than blind faith. You believe it, therefore it must be so.

[apotheon]

In other words, you meant something different by "system of" than I did. The underlying principles are the same. I referred to the abstract concept of logic in application, and you referred to differing systematic methodologies.

I already made mention of "assumptions", which is functionally equivalent to "faith" for these purposes. Feel free to continue to ignore me, though.

If you reject logical reasoning altogether, there's no point in continuing any discussion at all. I speak from an assumption that logical reasoning is not rejected.

I've already addressed the possibility of having made mistakes. If you weren't paying attention, that's nobody's fault but yours.