"Logical" objection to Empiricism

[Speakpigeon]

A logical truth is a statement or logical expression which is necessarily true. That is to say, a logical truth could not possibly be false.

Or perhaps less metaphysically, there doesn't seem to be any conceivable logical case or situation in which we would assess the expression as being false.



Now, the mere existence of these logical truths seems to be a problem for Empiricism...

Logical truths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds.

Any rational view or comment on this interesting piece of Wikied wisdom?
EB

 

[none]

Wiki also mentions interpretation and possible worlds, if that counts as wisdom there maybe more to be said

 

[Speakpigeon]

Wiki also mentions interpretation and possible worlds, if that counts as wisdom there maybe more to be said

And you're welcome to say it if that makes sense to you.

The OP is the barebone exposition of the problem. The one I think is enough for people to have a view about.

I've done my bit. Now it's up to you all. I'll be there and I'll be supportive.
EB

 

[none]

mmmm... um... is interpretation uniform in all possible worlds...??

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would that be relevant?
EB

 

[none]

How would that be relevant?
EB

maybe something to do with changing the interpretation of the statement

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would that be relevant?
EB

maybe something to do with changing the interpretation of the statement

???

Sorry, but you'll have to be a bit more forthcoming than that.

How would that be relevant to the OP?

In your own time.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

It depends on how strictly you define empiricism.
Technically, strict empiricism is self-refuting because you cant use empiricism itself to prove empiricism. Therefore...

 

[fromderinside]

A logical truth is a statement or logical expression which is necessarily true. That is to say, a logical truth could not possibly be false.

Or perhaps less metaphysically, there doesn't seem to be any conceivable logical case or situation in which we would assess the expression as being false.



Now, the mere existence of these logical truths seems to be a problem for Empiricism...

Logical truths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds.

Any rational view or comment on this interesting piece of Wikied wisdom?
EB

From the wiki article:

Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.

Works for me. Making a problem when there isn't one is always the way to start a meaningless argument.

 

[ruby sparks]

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds.

I'd be interested to hear an example, of a logical truth that is supposedly not based on empiricism (or experience at least), just so we can chew on it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. I have never been sure that there is anything which is fully a priori.

1 + 1 = 2. Does that not depend on us first setting up an axiom that is not a priori?

 

[fromderinside]

Well If you're partial to religion and you want to make 'kind' meaningful in that context and are very selective as to what makes 'kind' I guess .... you'd just have to go fish.

 

[none]

How would that be relevant?
EB

maybe something to do with changing the interpretation of the statement

???

Sorry, but you'll have to be a bit more forthcoming than that.

How would that be relevant to the OP?

In your own time.
EB

logical truth being the statement, interpretation needed to evaluate the statement, interpretation different in different worlds
we went through this a while back in the thread i started about absolute truth, basically the same thing except without starting with a wiki entry
you rejected my assertion abruptly without explanation
starting with wiki yields a similar result, instead of context the term used is possible worlds
in all possible worlds is a single logical truth through interpretation true?
I don't think so because in all possible worlds interpretation isn't uniform
all possible worlds need not conform to any specific standard

 

[Speakpigeon]

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds.

I'd be interested to hear an example, of a logical truth that is supposedly not based on empiricism (or experience at least), just so we can chew on it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. I have never been sure that there is anything which is fully a priori.

1 + 1 = 2. Does that not depend on us first setting up an axiom that is not a priori?

Here is a nice one and easy enough: ((p ⇒ r) ∧ (q ⇒ r)) ⇒ ((p ∨ q) ⇒ r)

Same thing in good English: ((p ⇒ r) and (q ⇒ r)) ⇒ ((p or q) ⇒ r)

If you look at it analytically, i.e. using your linguistic skills to analyse the formula, you may be tempted to say there's a mistake or that the formula doesn't say quite as much as it could say. Then again, if you let your brain explains things to you, you should see it works just fine. In other words, because it may not be so easy analytically for the untrained, it should be easier for you to use your intuition than to plod through a formal proof. Best way to get convinced, I guess.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It depends on how strictly you define empiricism.
Technically, strict empiricism is self-refuting because you cant use empiricism itself to prove empiricism. Therefore...

Seems irrelevant.

Maybe that could be the topic of another thread that you could start if you're motivated.

I don't personally know any apostle of that particular church so I'm tempted to dismiss the idea that any reasonable person would listen to the message of "strict empiricism".
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

From the wiki article:

Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.

Works for me. Making a problem when there isn't one is always the way to start a meaningless argument.

Logical truths don't seem to describe any particular aspect of the world, that much seems true.

However, they seems to be applicable to all aspects of the world, without any exception. This seems to me like saying that they matter quite a lot.

Personally, as I see it, logical truths can be used and are used by all of us in the course of our lives for very practical things as well as for more ethereal matters.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

???

Sorry, but you'll have to be a bit more forthcoming than that.

How would that be relevant to the OP?

In your own time.
EB

logical truth being the statement, interpretation needed to evaluate the statement, interpretation different in different worlds
we went through this a while back in the thread i started about absolute truth, basically the same thing except without starting with a wiki entry
you rejected my assertion abruptly without explanation

What is there to explain if you live in another possible world? What would have been your interpretation of my explanation?

starting with wiki yields a similar result, instead of context the term used is possible worlds
in all possible worlds is a single logical truth through interpretation true?
I don't think so because in all possible worlds interpretation isn't uniform
all possible worlds need not conform to any specific standard

I have no idea what "possible world" could possibly mean in other possible worlds.

To say that "logical truth is a statement" is itself a statement, so possibly with a different interpretation in other possible worlds.

So, I guess we're here in this world and there's mostly just one interpretation to "logical truth", the one that's agreed between philosophers, and I fail to see why I should not take it at face value, especially since it makes sense from my point of view, too.

It makes sense for me in this world and I can't have a conversation with people living in other possible worlds to see what they think.
EB

 

[none]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

...
A logical truth is considered by some philosophers to be a statement which is true in all possible worlds. This is contrasted with facts (which may also be referred to as contingent claims or synthetic claims) which are true in this world, as it has historically unfolded, but which is not true in at least one possible world, as it might have unfolded. The proposition "If p and q, then p" and the proposition "All married people are married" are logical truths because they are true due to their inherent structure and not because of any facts of the world. Later, with the rise of formal logic a logical truth was considered to be a statement which is true under all possible interpretations.

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds. Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.
...

it's like artwork
facts in all possible worlds aren't uniform, not sure how any given statement would conform to any standard in all possible worlds

where is the deduction

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

...
A logical truth is considered by some philosophers to be a statement which is true in all possible worlds. This is contrasted with facts (which may also be referred to as contingent claims or synthetic claims) which are true in this world, as it has historically unfolded, but which is not true in at least one possible world, as it might have unfolded. The proposition "If p and q, then p" and the proposition "All married people are married" are logical truths because they are true due to their inherent structure and not because of any facts of the world. Later, with the rise of formal logic a logical truth was considered to be a statement which is true under all possible interpretations.

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds. Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.
...

it's like artwork
facts in all possible worlds aren't uniform, not sure how any given statement would conform to any standard in all possible worlds

where is the deduction

Wiki explains here that facts are irrelevant to logical truths. If there is a world where there isn't anything like bachelors and married people then the logical truth "All married people are married" just will not apply but it will remain true, just like "If p and q, then p" is true also in our world even though p and q don't refer to anything.

You seem to assume that the logical truth "All married people are married" would have to be literally interpreted from the English sentence itself by some dude in another world. Of course not. Either they have things like married people and bachelors or they don't. If they do, then the logical truth applies. If they don't, it just doesn't apply. No interpretation.

Further, possible worlds are totally irrelevant. If they exist, we have no means of investigating their logic. If they don't, who cares about the logic over there?
EB

 

[none]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

...
A logical truth is considered by some philosophers to be a statement which is true in all possible worlds. This is contrasted with facts (which may also be referred to as contingent claims or synthetic claims) which are true in this world, as it has historically unfolded, but which is not true in at least one possible world, as it might have unfolded. The proposition "If p and q, then p" and the proposition "All married people are married" are logical truths because they are true due to their inherent structure and not because of any facts of the world. Later, with the rise of formal logic a logical truth was considered to be a statement which is true under all possible interpretations.

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds. Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.
...

it's like artwork
facts in all possible worlds aren't uniform, not sure how any given statement would conform to any standard in all possible worlds

where is the deduction

Wiki explains here that facts are irrelevant to logical truths. If there is a world where there isn't anything like bachelors and married people then the logical truth "All married people are married" just will not apply but it will remain true, just like "If p and q, then p" is true also in our world even though p and q don't refer to anything.

You seem to assume that the logical truth "All married people are married" would have to be literally interpreted from the English sentence itself by some dude in another world. Of course not. Either they have things like married people and bachelors or they don't. If they do, then the logical truth applies. If they don't, it just doesn't apply. No interpretation.

Further, possible worlds are totally irrelevant. If they exist, we have no means of investigating their logic. If they don't, who cares about the logic over there?
EB

you seem to be able to investigate their logic, you know all about all possible worlds
is logic a fact?

 

[skepticalbip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

...
A logical truth is considered by some philosophers to be a statement which is true in all possible worlds. This is contrasted with facts (which may also be referred to as contingent claims or synthetic claims) which are true in this world, as it has historically unfolded, but which is not true in at least one possible world, as it might have unfolded. The proposition "If p and q, then p" and the proposition "All married people are married" are logical truths because they are true due to their inherent structure and not because of any facts of the world. Later, with the rise of formal logic a logical truth was considered to be a statement which is true under all possible interpretations.

The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds. Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world.
...

it's like artwork
facts in all possible worlds aren't uniform, not sure how any given statement would conform to any standard in all possible worlds

where is the deduction

Wiki explains here that facts are irrelevant to logical truths. If there is a world where there isn't anything like bachelors and married people then the logical truth "All married people are married" just will not apply but it will remain true, just like "If p and q, then p" is true also in our world even though p and q don't refer to anything.

You seem to assume that the logical truth "All married people are married" would have to be literally interpreted from the English sentence itself by some dude in another world. Of course not. Either they have things like married people and bachelors or they don't. If they do, then the logical truth applies. If they don't, it just doesn't apply. No interpretation.

Further, possible worlds are totally irrelevant. If they exist, we have no means of investigating their logic. If they don't, who cares about the logic over there?
EB

That seems to be a bit of a sophistic statement. While it is true that logical "truths" can't be disputed, The fact that a logical conclusion necessarily is "logically true" does not mean it is necessarily true in the real world. If a logical conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of reality that is assumed then the conclusion will not be "true" in the real world.

Example: If it is assumed that all dogs are cuddly, friendly pets then it could be concluded that any dog can be approached and petted with no danger. While that conclusion would be "logically true", I wouldn't rely on it to make decisions in my real life.

ETA:
For a "logical truth" that has anything to do with physical reality to be "true" in the real world, it must be based on accurate empirical findings in the real world.