"Logical" objection to Empiricism

[none]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

 

[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...

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

Well gee whiz. What type of capital "E" empiricism is your op about?
The logical objection to an inconsistent, ad hoc epistemology would be that it is inconsistent and ad hoc. Can we dependably rely on the evidence of our senses or not?

[insert blind men and elephant picture here]

 

[Juma]

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

not really interesting until the actual arguments of these rationalist philosophers are presented..

 

[Juma]

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

Well gee whiz. What type of capital "E" empiricism is your op about?
The logical objection to an inconsistent, ad hoc epistemology would be that it is inconsistent and ad hoc. Can we dependably rely on the evidence of our senses or not?

[insert blind men and elephant picture here]

blind men and elephant picture has been properly debunked elsewhere..
empiri makes itself usrul. it is the usefullness of applications of pure logic that needs to show that it is useful.

 

[skepticalbip]

blind men and elephant picture has been properly debunked elsewhere..
empiri makes itself usrul. it is the usefullness of applications of pure logic that needs to show that it is useful.

Indeed, as far as I can determine, pure logic (unless it is based on empirical knowledge) amounts to little more than "belly button gazing".

 

[Lion IRC]

Is the self-reported pain scale 1 to 10 empirically, objectively valid?
It certainly is useful.

Is the law of the excluded middle useful notwithstanding the fact that you can't empirically verify the subject in every case?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is the self-reported pain scale 1 to 10 empirically, objectively valid?
It certainly is useful.

I would say that pain is real even though it is not a physical object. The 0-10 scale would be an "empirical" measurement ("guesstimate") of its reality.

Is the law of the excluded middle useful notwithstanding the fact that you can't empirically verify the subject in every case?

If used in pure logic (as in A or not A) I see no utility other than as a mental exercise. If used the real world (as in toxic or not toxic) then it would be an extremely useful empirical understanding.

 

[Copernicus]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

Well, actually, Heraclitus might quibble with you there, if you are talking about stepping in the same "river" twice.

 

[none]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

Well, actually, Heraclitus might quibble with you there, if you are talking about stepping in the same "river" twice.

it would seem to me there is no alternative in some worlds

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

???

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

I obviously don't know anything about your "possible" worlds. Why not more simply ask about the logic of God?

is logic a fact?

All I know is that logic is a fact of our world, or more precisely and with more certainty a fact of human minds if not necessarily of all of them.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I fail to see where would be any bit of "sophistic" in what I said or in the bit quoted from Wiki. I guess the sophistic is all in your imagination.

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.

That's completely irrelevant to the OP. Logic here is usually taken to be a fact of our minds, irrespective of how minds get to exist at all.


Look at the one I already produced here: ((p ⇒ r) and (q ⇒ r)) ⇒ ((p or q) ⇒ r). How could this formula possibly assert on its own any physical fact?

The fact the argument given in the Wiki quote asserts is that there are logical truths. The suggested question here is whether Empiricism can at all account for our knowledge of this fact.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

Nobody in this world could care less if it's not true that x = x in some "possible" world.
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

Well gee whiz. What type of capital "E" empiricism is your op about?
The logical objection to an inconsistent, ad hoc epistemology would be that it is inconsistent and ad hoc. Can we dependably rely on the evidence of our senses or not?

[insert blind men and elephant picture here]

That's all very interesting and profound but if you can't get yourself to argue your case properly there isn't much I can do for you.

[insert headless men and elephant picture here]

Only idiot or ayatollah Empiricists would fail to know our senses are fallible. Most empiricists would have noticed our fallibility and taken it as just another fact of life. This is the kind of reasonable Empiricism we're talking about here, and this is clearly apparent in the OP.

So we're talking here about the kind of Empiricism that would very reasonably claim that we cannot know anything outside observation of the physical world. And that claim would be faulted simply by our knowledge of the fact of logical truths.

Unless our dear empiricists here can come up with some rational and convincing argument.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well gee whiz. What type of capital "E" empiricism is your op about?
The logical objection to an inconsistent, ad hoc epistemology would be that it is inconsistent and ad hoc. Can we dependably rely on the evidence of our senses or not?

[insert blind men and elephant picture here]

blind men and elephant picture has been properly debunked elsewhere..
empiri makes itself usrul. it is the usefullness of applications of pure logic that needs to show that it is useful.

It's darkly funny here because I've been banned from Physics Forums very quickly after posting my first thread there precisely about the usefulness of logic in science!

And the reason had apparently nothing to do with logic but with the notion of usefulness itself. This is what attracted a furious response from one of their official ayatollahs there. Apparently, asking for the usefulness of anything scientists might do is a bannable offense there.

Deux poids, deux mesures.

Still, I know you're not them and they're not you. I feel safe here.

So, go on, go there and ask your interesting question about "the usefulness of applications of pure logic" in science.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

blind men and elephant picture has been properly debunked elsewhere..
empiri makes itself usrul. it is the usefullness of applications of pure logic that needs to show that it is useful.

Indeed, as far as I can determine, pure logic (unless it is based on empirical knowledge) amounts to little more than "belly button gazing".

Go on the mountain and declaim this profound message to the huddled masses of bewildered mathematicians who spend their entire professional lives stupidly working on useless "pure" logic.

I don't even understand why universities and governments should spend any money on these people.

Our money! I'm with you, man!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is the self-reported pain scale 1 to 10 empirically, objectively valid?
It certainly is useful.

I would say that pain is real even though it is not a physical object. The 0-10 scale would be an "empirical" measurement ("guesstimate") of its reality.

Is the law of the excluded middle useful notwithstanding the fact that you can't empirically verify the subject in every case?

If used in pure logic (as in A or not A) I see no utility other than as a mental exercise. If used the real world (as in toxic or not toxic) then it would be an extremely useful empirical understanding.

The OP isn't about the utility of logic. You're beside the point here.

The OP isn't about pure logic either. I don't even know what pure logic would be except mathematicians working on logic without any consideration for the utility of logic or the utility of their work on logic.

The OP is about the fact that we know logical truths and that this seems to contradict the empiricist view that observation of the physical world is necessary to know any fact at all. I see you've failed to address this question.

Now logic is very much a part of our mental life and there's very little we can do without using it. How useful is that do you think?

And as far as I have been able to ascertain, scientists make very little use of formal logic and rely essentially on their own, intuitive, sense of logic to do science (although they inevitably also use the logic which is implicitly incorporated into the computers they use). Either way, it's clear logic is very useful and necessary.

But pure logic? If by "pure logic" you mean just the consideration of a logical truth for itself and outside any application to the real world, be my not very brilliant guest.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

blind men and elephant picture has been properly debunked elsewhere..
empiri makes itself usrul. it is the usefullness of applications of pure logic that needs to show that it is useful.

Indeed, as far as I can determine, pure logic (unless it is based on empirical knowledge) amounts to little more than "belly button gazing".

Go on the mountain and declaim this profound message to the huddled masses of bewildered mathematicians who spend their entire professional lives stupidly working on useless "pure" logic.

I don't even understand why universities and governments should spend any money on these people.

Our money! I'm with you, man!
EB

Real cute, but I haven't yet seen you explain the utility of logic without it being applied to the real world. Without real world application (which requires emperical knowledge), it is only a mental exercise - maybe enjoyable to the person involved but useless to anyone else. However, when applied to real world problems, it is a very powerful tool.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Go on the mountain and declaim this profound message to the huddled masses of bewildered mathematicians who spend their entire professional lives stupidly working on useless "pure" logic.

I don't even understand why universities and governments should spend any money on these people.

Our money! I'm with you, man!
EB

Real cute, but I haven't yet seen you explain the utility of logic without it being applied to the real world. Without real world application (which requires emperical knowledge), it is only a mental exercise. However, when applied to real world questions, it is a very powerful tool.

Sure, and where in the OP is it suggested otherwise?!

You're just going the way of the derail here. Bravo!
EB

- - - Updated - - -

i requested a split from this thread a long time ago

???

What did have for breakfast today? Pure logic?
EB

 

[none]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

Nobody in this world could care less if it's not true that x = x in some "possible" world.
EB

]
of course not because that would undermine the statement being a logical truth and you can't handle that for some reason

 

[Speakpigeon]

he'll appeal to a simpler "logical truth"
x = x, in all possible worlds?
sure, if...

Well, actually, Heraclitus might quibble with you there, if you are talking about stepping in the same "river" twice.

No, it was just a metaphoric play with the word "river".
EB