"Logical" objection to Empiricism

[skepticalbip]

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

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

Now you are back to an earlier post of mine. Without utility, logic is only mental masterbation.

 

[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

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

Look up the word "care" in the dictionary.

I guess we're having a communication problem here. You seem to give a different interpretation than me to very ordinary English words. Do you by any chance live in another "possible" world.

See, that's what would happen if we had to discuss logic with people in another "possible" world. We would just find things we don't understand about each other. And then what? Big deal! That wouldn't change anything about our logical truths. We need to understand each other to begin with and then we can talk about logical truths. Although I also happen to suspect we can talk at all only if we know logical truths first. But I don't actually know that. Say hello on my behalf to all your "possible" friends over there!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

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

Now you are back to an earlier post of mine. Without utility, logic is only mental masterbation.

How about doing science without any logic? Would that be useful, do you think, or just more "mental masterbation"?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

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

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

Now you are back to an earlier post of mine. Without utility, logic is only mental masterbation.

How about doing science without any logic? Would that be useful, do you think, or just more "mental masterbation"?
EB

I don't know if you don't actually read posts you respond to or if you have a very short attention span. Anyway, to refresh your memory:

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]

How about doing science without any logic? Would that be useful, do you think, or just more "mental masterbation"?
EB

I don't know if you don't actually read posts you respond to or if you have a very short attention span. Anyway, to refresh your memory:

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.

My point was that you have to be consistent. Do you accept that doing science without logic is "mental masterbation"?

I'm sure somehow that will go without actually saying it.

Enjoying your nice little derail here?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't know if you don't actually read posts you respond to or if you have a very short attention span. Anyway, to refresh your memory:

My point was that you have to be consistent. Do you accept that doing science without logic is "mental masterbation"?

I'm sure somehow that will go without actually saying it.

EB

It is an asinine knee-jerk response because you have no way to justify logic without it having utility in the real world (other than for mental masturbation) which your op tried to do. No one would be stupid enough to even consider science without logic anymore than they would consider science without data. And yet you seem to think nothing of considering logic without utility.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't know if you don't actually read posts you respond to or if you have a very short attention span. Anyway, to refresh your memory:

My point was that you have to be consistent. Do you accept that doing science without logic is "mental masterbation"?

I'm sure somehow that will go without actually saying it.

EB

It is an asinine knee-jerk response because you have no way to justify logic without it having utility in the real world (other than for mental masturbation) which your op tried to do.

You must live in a very strange world, I guess. Nothing I can do about that. I hope you have friends near you to help.

No one would be stupid enough to even consider science without logic anymore than they would consider science without data.

So you agree that doing science without logic would be "mental masterbation"?

And yet you seem to think nothing of considering logic without utility.

You're trying to humour me here, I suppose.

I'm currently spending time trying to assess exactly how useful logic may be and here you are going on and on and on and on about your fantasies about the OP and just derailing this thread.

You haven't once addressed the OP. Good work, lad! First class job!
EB

 

[none]

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

Look up the word "care" in the dictionary.

I guess we're having a communication problem here. You seem to give a different interpretation than me to very ordinary English words. Do you by any chance live in another "possible" world.

See, that's what would happen if we had to discuss logic with people in another "possible" world. We would just find things we don't understand about each other. And then what? Big deal! That wouldn't change anything about our logical truths. We need to understand each other to begin with and then we can talk about logical truths. Although I also happen to suspect we can talk at all only if we know logical truths first. But I don't actually know that. Say hello on my behalf to all your "possible" friends over there!
EB

Don't be a dick
You started this stupid exercise
Its theoretical nothing more and all your complaint isn't going to change that
And x = x, if... so when you figure out something better let me know

 

[skepticalbip]

It is an asinine knee-jerk response because you have no way to justify logic without it having utility in the real world (other than for mental masturbation) which your op tried to do.

You must live in a very strange world, I guess. Nothing I can do about that. I hope you have friends near you to help.

No one would be stupid enough to even consider science without logic anymore than they would consider science without data.

So you agree that doing science without logic would be "mental masterbation"?

WTF? As I said, but perhaps in a way you can't understand, the question itself is nonsense. Is that too difficult to understand?

And yet you seem to think nothing of considering logic without utility.

You're trying to humour me here, I suppose.

I'm currently spending time trying to assess exactly how useful logic may be and here you are going on and on and on and on about your fantasies about the OP and just derailing this thread.

You haven't once addressed the OP. Good work, lad! First class job!
EB

I could echo none's suggestion... Don't be a dick.

My first post addressed the op. Yes, logic can give "logically true" conclusions without empirical facts. But you didn't like that I continued on to show that "logically true" does not necessarily mean true in the real world. This makes the "logically true" conclusion, if that is all that can be said about them, useless except for those who really enjoy mental masturbation. More important, perhaps, than the logic for us mere mortals is the validity of the assumptions used. Would you like some more examples of "logically true" conclusions that are nonsense?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Look up the word "care" in the dictionary.

I guess we're having a communication problem here. You seem to give a different interpretation than me to very ordinary English words. Do you by any chance live in another "possible" world.

See, that's what would happen if we had to discuss logic with people in another "possible" world. We would just find things we don't understand about each other. And then what? Big deal! That wouldn't change anything about our logical truths. We need to understand each other to begin with and then we can talk about logical truths. Although I also happen to suspect we can talk at all only if we know logical truths first. But I don't actually know that. Say hello on my behalf to all your "possible" friends over there!
EB

Don't be a dick
You started this stupid exercise
Its theoretical nothing more and all your complaint isn't going to change that
And x = x, if... so when you figure out something better let me know

I'm blissfully uncomprehending of whatever you're trying to ask me to perform. Next time, try to articulate your "thoughts". I'm no good at guess work.

So, I guess you can go back to whatever "possible" world you come from.
EB

 

[none]

Don't be a dick
You started this stupid exercise
Its theoretical nothing more and all your complaint isn't going to change that
And x = x, if... so when you figure out something better let me know

I'm blissfully uncomprehending of whatever you're trying to ask me to perform. Next time, try to articulate your "thoughts". I'm no good at guess work.

So, I guess you can go back to whatever "possible" world you come from.
EB

Yes I know, you're committed to your delusion English can't help you

 

[none]

You siphon off the first paragraph of a wiki entry and think you got it all figured out
You asked for commentary then reject it because you're trolling

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you agree that doing science without logic would be "mental masterbation"?

WTF? As I said, but perhaps in a way you can't understand, the question itself is nonsense. Is that too difficult to understand?

It makes perfect sense on the contrary. The fact that it would be impossible to try and do any science without some amount of logic doesn't make the question nonsensical.

The reality is that doing "pure" logic, if anybody ever did that, is useful. And it is useful precisely because you can't do any science without some logic.

You haven't once addressed the OP. Good work, lad! First class job!

My first post addressed the op. Yes, logic can give "logically true" conclusions without empirical facts.

No, you didn't address the OP's question. The question has never been about whether logic can give logically true conclusions without empirical facts.

The OP is about how Empiricism could explain logical truths, as the Wiki quote puts it:

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.

And I already explained this to you in response to the post you're talking about:

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

So I already explained this but it seems you're not interested in the least. You keep coming back to your irrelevant point about the supposed uselessness of "pure" logic, whatever that may be, and you go on and on about this, never addressing the OP's question.

Would you like some more examples of "logically true" conclusions that are nonsense?

Go on, make yourself useful here. Show how completely irrelevant your comments can be.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

You siphon off the first paragraph of a wiki entry and think you got it all figured out
You asked for commentary then reject it because you're trolling

I thought about that then thought that maybe SP just has a single track mind so can't understand contrary ideas, reacting to them with snottiness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You siphon off the first paragraph of a wiki entry and think you got it all figured out

???

You've a sick mind.

I used the Wiki entry to show it's a well-known question and I provided the link.

I cut the bit you're referring to to avoid influencing answers.

If I really wanted to hide the bit I cut, it would have been simpler to assume the Wiki quote as mine by rewording it.

This much should be obvious to all except, perhaps, idiots and conspiracy theorists.

You asked for commentary then reject it because you're trolling

This coming from someone from another "possible" world.

I rejected all comments that didn't address the OP's question.

Il n'y a pas de pire aveugle que celui qui ne veut pas voir.

See? I can use French, too, if you preferred for your "interpretations":
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You siphon off the first paragraph of a wiki entry and think you got it all figured out
You asked for commentary then reject it because you're trolling

I thought about that then thought that maybe SP just has a single track mind so can't understand contrary ideas, reacting to them with snottiness.

I already responded to that:

Go on, make yourself useful here. Show how completely irrelevant your comments can be.

EB

 

[none]

I already responded to that:

Go on, make yourself useful here. Show how completely irrelevant your comments can be.

EB

so what do you want, a medal or a chest to pin in on?

 

[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.

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

I was just making an oblique reference to the point Heraclitus made about sameness and the role that plays in the identity relationship. Aristotle wanted to be able to explain why one could actually step in the same river twice, and that is what gave rise to the idea of logical proofs. There are always differences between the things we equate, so we need to ignore those differences in order to make our equations work. We recognize the quality of whiteness by ignoring all of the differences between things that are white. Swans and snow are not the same, but they share a property that is the same.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I already responded to that:

Go on, make yourself useful here. Show how completely irrelevant your comments can be.

EB

so what do you want, a medal or a chest to pin in on?

???

Are you serious?! Hey, we're already at 51 posts, you know, I would have thought you knew the answer to that.

It's all in the OP. Just have a look at it again. It's all explained:

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

Nothing too difficult to understand for earthlings like me but maybe for you it's more difficult to interpret such straightforward questions! You're coming from so far away.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

I was just making an oblique reference to the point Heraclitus made about sameness and the role that plays in the identity relationship. Aristotle wanted to be able to explain why one could actually step in the same river twice, and that is what gave rise to the idea of logical proofs. There are always differences between the things we equate, so we need to ignore those differences in order to make our equations work. We recognize the quality of whiteness by ignoring all of the differences between things that are white. Swans and snow are not the same, but they share a property that is the same.

Are you trying to suggest that the human mind has somehow inevitably to create something that doesn't really exist out there if it is to understand the world at all?!

And then the question becomes whether we really know we step into any actual river or if we merely think we're doing it. We're only thinking we're stepping in and it's only into our mental abstraction of a river.

Well, that would explain a lot.

It's amazing what the Greeks did. More then 2,000 years ago. And it just stopped?
EB