When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_marg]

Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence.

Interesting point. Please provide evidence of its truth. I think it is accepted as a matter of course in epistemology that certain kinds of beliefs are warranted absent evidence. You are rejecting this here. Yet you are asserting a proposition that, as far as I can tell, has no evidence in its favor. If that is the case, how this this not trivially self-refuting?

Hi LD,

I don't believe you read Tal's sentences carefully. While beliefs don't need evidence to be useful, those who hold beliefs which were arrived at using rational empiricism are more likely to be true, than beliefs arrived at either willy nilly, or absent reasoning, or absent evidence. And note Tal's sentence in which he discusses probability of a belief being true. Evidence of this which you asked for, is that rational empiricism works in practice. The scientific method for example employs rational empiricism and it is effective in developing theories which interpret phenomena of the world we observe. Evidence is crucial in the process, and theories are reasoned to from evidence.
If the word "logic" only ever referred to formal logic structure, then the concept "informal logic" wouldn't exist, because informal logic looks at content not structure of argument. The scientific method for example uses informal logic or inductive reasoning. I mention this because I noticed later in the thread you restricted the use of the word "logic" to the narrow sense of formal logic only and it appears you assumed Tal must have used it in that sense only.

[_marg]

If I BELIEVE in a flying spaghetti monster, that belief is unsound, IE it is an illogical belief just as those hopped up on LSD have illogical beliefs about their environment, etc. A belief can be illogical.

What's illogical about the FSM? Beliefs can be unsound and yet logical.

For instance:

If 2 +2 = 4, then God does not exist.
2 +2 = 4

Therefore, God does not exist.

This is a logical argument. It isn't a sound one.

This argument is in formal deductive structure, that does not make it a logical argument. Formal logic may not be concerned with content, but informal logic is. Your first premise is nonsense, commits the fallacy of explanation.

[_marg]

how can something be logical yet unsound?

Logic isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se. It concerns itself about the reasonableness of relationships between statements. This argument takes a logically valid form. Every step of reasoning is reasonable. It is an unsound argument because one of the premises is false.

It is misleading to say "logic" isn't concerned with whether proposition are true or not. Logic doesn't determine whether propositions are true. Observations, testing, experiences, determine truth of propositions. But logic in deductive reasoning, is concerned with whether proposition are true or not. In deductive formal logic, false premises offer no value. Only if the premises are true, is there any value to looking at the argument. Only if the premises are true can one rely on the truth claim of the conclusion. When you study formal deductive logic as a discipline you are acquiring tools of logic. So you learn what structures are formally recognized. Then you use that tool and apply is against arguments. Only if the premises are true is the tool of deductive structure recognition useful. Only is the premises are true, and the structure is recognized as deductively valid can you rely upon the conclusion being true.

if one believes that if 2+2=4 then god exists, how is that in itself a logical statement?

It might be a false statement, it is unclear how it is illogical. What rule of logic is it violating?

http://www.virtuescience.com/logicalfallacies.html take a look at fallacy of explanation, and fallacy of definition.

-The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist
-The theory which explains cannot be tested

[_A Light in the Darkness]

But the question of validity of a logical argument isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se. That might have been a better way to put it. It sounds a bit weird to suggest that the issue of truth doesn't play a role since the meaning of soundness does employ the notion of truth. Also consider that my namesake Afred Tarski was a logician quite concerned with the meaning of the notion of "true propositions".

When we are concerned with the truth-value of propositions arrived at through logical argument, of course we would be concerned with true premises. It just so happens that logic concerns the inferences between premises, not the truth of the premises per se. It is in the "leaps" of reasoning. I think you know this. I doubt people like Mercury and Marg do.

[_Some Schmo]

The position in epistemology that Tal wants to argue is widely regarded as misguided or incomplete, regardless of how you feel about the LDS faith or how many "skeptic" books you've read.

Well, that wouldn't exactly surprise me. Given the number of people out there with a proclivity for the supernatural, it's hardly a shock that many will want to factor in things other than logic and evidence when trying to assess what's true. Just because the majority of people say they believe in god doesn't mean he suddenly exists, either.

By the way, what other things might we be talking about here? Gut feelings? Hearsay? Whisperings of the spirit? The position of the stars and a clear night? Voices in your head? Gnomes secretly stealing and carrying away your magic underwear in the middle of the night?

Just what are some worthy examples of ways to get at the truth aside from logic and evidence? This should be good.

What I said is as true of atheist philosophers as it is of philosophers who believe in God. Also, it's like you completely ignored this post I wrote:

I'm saying that you cannot provide evidence that it is true that logic and evidence are required for any rationally warranted belief. If you think you can, then by all means ante up. Provide evidence that your reality is not an elaborate construct created by a scientist manipulating a brain in a vat. Do you think this belief is warranted? I think you do. However, it is unclear how evidence could be established in its favor. The position in epistemology that Tal wants to argue is widely regarded as misguided or incomplete, regardless of how you feel about the LDS faith or how many "skeptic" books you've read.

Certain beliefs about the nature of reality are necessarily prior to evidential reasoning and these beliefs are taken for granted by most of us. Such beliefs would include beliefs such as belief in the reliability of the senses, reliability of memory, that the future tends to resemble the past in such a way that inductive reasoning yields reliable conclusions, etc. Without these beliefs being taken for granted, almost all of our conclusions about the world based on sensory information become suspect. These beliefs, however, are not supportable through evidence. Any attempt to provide evidence of them becomes trivially circular as evidential reasoning depends on them in the first place.

Also, while I think it would be a mistake to think Tal is endorsing any formal philosophical position, as I don't think he has thought out what he is saying well enough to have a formal position, when he argues that debate is only meaningful when the statements being made are logically consistent and capable of support through evidence, he is in the ballpark of a logical positivist project long considered dead.

I'd like to see your evidence that atheist philosophers believe there's more to arriving at the truth than logic and evidence. Sorry that I won't just take your word for it (I suppose this is another way to arrive at the truth? Taking the word of some dude on the internet?)

No, I read your post. I understand that this world could all be an illusion, and don't think that's such an outrageous proposition. However, if you're going to work from that paradigm, all the rules go out the window and there are no ways to arrive at the truth, are there? Listening to the still small voice is no more reliable than concrete, repeatable evidence.

So, let's stick to the assumption that there are certain universal constants about this "reality" in which we find ourselves, and that we actually can know things. Are you going to answer my question? What other ways of arriving at the truth are there aside from logic and evidence?

[Guest]

It is misleading to say "logic" isn't concerned with whether proposition are true or not. Logic doesn't determine whether propositions are true. Observations, testing, experiences, determine truth of propositions.

Really? Then prove this proposition is true through observation, testing, and experience without blatantly begging the question. It is more complex than this. Obviously, observations play a role in determining the truth of premises of an argument. However, it is mistaken to think they are the sole relevant factor. Moreover, when someone divides "evidence" from "logic" they clearly are referencing logic as in making good inferences and evidence as in "observations, testing, and experiences." As I already pointed out, if the latter was already part of "logic" then there would be no need to list them independently.

But logic in deductive reasoning, is concerned with whether proposition are true or not.

I don't think you understand. When we say someone is using poor deductive logic, we are saying they are making illicit steps in reasoning. You can use good deductive logic on bad premises. Of course we are usually concerned with determining the truth of something when we use deductive logic, so the truth of the premises matters to us, but the truth of the premises doesn't mean much to the validity of inferences being made from them. The logic can be good while the conclusion is bad. An existential claim is "illogical" if it cannot, in modal terms, exist in any possible world. It is unsound if it is not actualized in this world. There's a difference. It isn't illogical, in the formal sense, to say the FSM exists. It's unreasonable, yes. Unsound? Yes. It is not illogical, however, in the sense required by the opening posts' reasoning. You might argue the invisible pink unicorn is illogical because "pink" and "invisible" are contradictory terms (though they aren't necessarily), but the FSM wasn't devised with any problems like that.

if one believes that if 2+2=4 then god exists, how is that in itself a logical statement?

It might be a false statement, it is unclear how it is illogical. What rule of logic is it violating?

http://www.virtuescience.com/logicalfallacies.html take a look at fallacy of explanation, and fallacy of definition.

It looks like you found a random website somewhere on the internet willing to engage in the same flawed understanding. Congrats. Now do that with a major text on logic. I have Copi and Cohen's Introductory text on logic sitting right in front of me. It is widely considered to be the best book of its type. Nowhere does it discuss such a fallacy. Why do you think that might be?
[/quote]

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I'd like to see your evidence that atheist philosophers believe there's more to arriving at the truth than logic and evidence. Sorry that I won't just take your word for it (I suppose this is another way to arrive at the truth? Taking the word of some dude on the internet?)

I don't care whether you believe me or not. It's true, and if you had a basic familiarity with contemporary epistemology, you would know this. I already gave you some reason as to why this is.

No, I read your post. I understand that this world could all be an illusion, and don't think that's such an outrageous proposition. However, if you're going to work from that paradigm, all the rules go out the window and there are no ways to arrive at the truth, are there?

This is called a transcendental argument. It says we need to accept these premises as true, otherwise reasoning itself won't function. It isn't based on evidence. You deny transcendental arguments as a means to determine the truth of propositions, as they are non-evidential in nature. So this argument can't work, given your own reasoning. Again, where is your evidence?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

For others, I'll explain what a transcendental argument is in a little more detail. Those arguments hold that we must accept knowledge is possible. Otherwise there is no point to any discussion or inquiry into the nature of the world. It's a sort of pascal's wager of epistemology. Now, given that knowledge is possible what must the world be like, and what must the workings of our minds be like, if human knowledge is to be possible? Anything that is necessarily the case we should also accept as true. Arguments that a given proposition is required to make knowledge possible is called a transcendental argument. They are not a matter of evidence. Schmo and a host of other naïve skeptics who seem to have gained a little to much self-confidence by reading pop-skepticism argue in a way that denies that these arguments are meaningful. So if they want to assert that something like "the past resembles the future in such a way that inductions will work" they need some other kind of reason to think it. Well, where is the evidence?

[_Some Schmo]

I don't care whether you believe me or not. It's true, and if you had a basic familiarity with contemporary epistemology, you would know this. I already gave you some reason as to why this is.

Yeah, you don't understand what you're talking about at all. I'm not going to provide any evidence for it. You'll just have to take my word for it, because I am so much smarter than you are, you lowly intellectual ant.

Have I got that about right?

This is definitely DCP I'm talking to. It's got his stench of dumbass written all over it. The lying, deceitful sockpuppet using hell-bound dumbass...

Pretty funny. It's always entertaining to watch you masturbate all over the forums here, Danny boy, thinking you're actually arousing someone.

[_Coggins7]

I don't believe you read Tal's sentences carefully. While beliefs don't need evidence to be useful, those who hold beliefs which were arrived at using rational empiricism are more likely to be true, than beliefs arrived at either willy nilly, or absent reasoning, or absent evidence. And note Tal's sentence in which he discusses probability of a belief being true. Evidence of this which you asked for, is that rational empiricism works in practice. The scientific method for example employs rational empiricism and it is effective in developing theories which interpret phenomena of the world we observe.

Correct, and beyond the "phenomenal world we observe", rational empiricism breaks down; that is, logic and the scientific method are up against severe constraints. This is why I speak of "perceptual limitations" and "perceptual fields". One's perceptual field is this life is conditioned precisely by the limits and parameters imposed by one's perceptual tools (logic, empiricism, language).