Inflexible Logic

[Ravate]

Logic as defined, is sound reasoning that validates a claim.

However, there always seems to be a confrontation about what is true, and what is a fabrication.

Sometimes Logic can seem to point the wrong way, there are instances in which it can even seem false.

However, Logic is fact based, therefore we can rest assured in it's hypothesis. But I am wondering, are there any circumstances known to any of you, in which Logic is not valid? Any true scenario in which Logic really was proven, to be inaccurate?

Please let me know of any you think of, good day. -Ravate.

[Mister Mister]

Logic as I understand deals with how we use language to describe the world, and comparing language which is used, to reality, to evaluate claims, and to .  It is as much the rules of language as it is the rules of thought and argument.  Fundamental to this process is to distinguish between objects and events we can sense, and can therefore be verified by others, and concepts, which tend to describe relationships between objects.  For example, we can all see a tree, or a person, or a car.  Children can be taught these words, and they will associate the word with a tree, person, or car, they have never even seen before because they are getting similar enough sense data to categorize their experience.  On the other hand, words like forest, society, or traffic, are more conceptual, they deal with aggregates or relations between said objects.  Children don't start to get words like this until an older age.

 This is where things get tricky.  People often use concepts as if they are objects, ( ex. "The Will of Society" Will is something ascribed to an Individual, whereas society describes a group of individuals, which cannot have a will), or they encounter conflicts with one another because they use concepts which are not clearly defined, or have different definitions (ex. the liberal or conservative definition of Justice or Freedom tends to seriously differ) or they simply refer to Concepts that are not rational, such as Christ, America, or Social Justice.

Another important aspect of logic is the ability to "syllogize". A syllogism is a conclusion based on an already defined principle.  "If John is a Bachelor and all Bachelor's are unmarried, John is unmarried".  Again, children tend to be very good at this.  A more challenging one might be "Theft is the unjust acquisition of property through violence, coercion, secrecy, or deception.  Taxation is the acquisition of property through coercion.  Therefore taxation is theft."  Essentially the function of logical thought is to continue to extend a principle into as many areas of life as possible and see what conclusions, however startling or emotionally charged, we come up with.  "Logical Fallacies" are common mistakes people make in coming to a conclusion that does not necessarily follow.  For example "When there are fewer ice cream sales, statistically there are fewer murders.  Therefore the government should outlaw ice cream to reduce murder".

 As I understand, the limits of logic have to do with what is called inductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning is where we encounter a thin slice of information from the world, and come up with a principle or a pattern which governs this.  This process is most visible in language acquisition in young children, and is one of the things that computers simply cannot do.  So I don't think that logic is ever invalid exactly, but there are many important capacities of the Mind which lie outside the realm of Logic.  Also, we can have wrong or irrational concepts and principles, in which case when we apply logic we can come to wrong conclusions.  To act on these can be very destructive.

Hope that gives you some ideas, I'm maybe not the biggest expert on this but this is my understanding.  Why do you ask this?  Is there some instance in which you think logic is not valid?

[dsayers]

What does "seem false" mean? Humans have the capacity for error, which is why we must reject what things seem to be when that contradicts the real world. Logic is derived from the real world. Specifically, the consistency of matter and energy. You're essentially asking if up has ever been proven to be down.

 

No, it hasn't. Any proof that SEEMS to say otherwise is flawed. I once had a geometry teacher that had an elaborate proof of 1+1=3. However, upon examination, his proof presumed division by zero to be defined. Nobody else in class saw this though. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

[Sal9000]

Logic is fact based

 

Modern logic is formal, not material. First order logic uses variables that can be quantified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

 

 

in which Logic is not valid? Any true scenario in which Logic really was proven, to be inaccurate?

 

 

There are two ways in which logic is inaccurate. Logical laws are either abstract concepts that don't relate to the natural world (modern maths, ZMF and so on) or it is a mental construct to reduce complexity. In the latter case it is an approximation of reality (think of a map). There is hardly one instance where the law of identity can be proven in nature to be true without making suppositions.

Abstract logic is either incomplete and without contradictions, or complete with contradictions.

[WasatchMan]

Logic is always the preferable methodology of reasoning, by definition. It is our understanding of the variables/inputs/systems/etc that can result in what seems to be a logical construct that eventually is discovered to be false.

[powder]

As I understand it logic is not the same a truth.  I think you may be mixing them up together.  Logic is a methodology for reasoning and requires internal consistency.  Therefore, an argument can still be based on false assumptions or information and still be logical.  

[hannahbanana]

I guess the best example I can think of is that a proof may be sound with given information, but is proven false when more information is given. Several examples of this can be seen in the history of science.

[Mister Mister]

As I understand it logic is not the same a truth.  I think you may be mixing them up together.  Logic is a methodology for reasoning and requires internal consistency.  Therefore, an argument can still be based on false assumptions or information and still be logical.  

 

 Right, like "My dog is a Unicorn, and Unicorns have horns, therefore my dog has a horn" or  "Christ is both God and the Son of God, therefore He is His own Father", or "The proper function of the State is to pass and enforce laws that protect people, therefore drug users should be put in prison."

[poopoooooo]

so in other words, logic cannot be incorrect - only the information that is put into the logical equation. 

[shirgall]

so in other words, logic cannot be incorrect - only the information that is put into the logical equation. 

 

Indeed. "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

[Daniel Unplugged]

But I am wondering, are there any circumstances known to any of you, in which Logic is not valid?

I once tried to use logic to come to a complete understanding of how the female brain works. Does that count?

 

 

/Joke

[Ravate]

Anyone familiar with Monty Python would be familiar to logic used incorrectly.

The only thing I am interested in however, are the cases wherein a universal law has an exception.

A break in physics so to speak, only the ones which modern science does not have the capacity to deny, or to realize as true.

Are there any examples you know of, which involves any cases on inexplicable faults in what we know to be scientifically true?

[Daniel Unplugged]

The only thing I am interested in however, are the cases wherein a universal law has an exception.

Logic dictates that if a universal law has an exception, it is not a universal law to at all.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Are there any examples you know of, which involves any cases on inexplicable faults in what we know to be scientifically true?

Yes, and I'm so glad I have the opportunity to say it here:

 

Dark Matter!

 

Come on physicists, you think I'm gonna buy that copout? I know, I know; General Relativity is the most brilliant and beautiful theory of all time. I agree with you completely on that. But the numbers didn't add up right, did they? So you made up some cockamamey bull story about there being extra mass that we just can't detect. Didn't ya? I'm onto you physicists.

 

Whoa, that feels better.

 

Theories should be modified to fit data, not the other way around - Sherlock Holmes

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Yes, and I'm so glad I have the opportunity to say it here:

 

Dark Matter!

 

Come on physicists, you think I'm gonna buy that copout? I know, I know; General Relativity is the most brilliant and beautiful theory of all time. I agree with you completely on that. But the numbers didn't add up right, did they? So you made up some cockamamey bull story about there being extra mass that we just can't detect. Didn't ya? I'm onto you physicists.

 

Whoa, that feels better.

 

Theories should be modified to fit data, not the other way around - Sherlock Holmes

 

Thank you so much for saying this.

[J. D. Stembal]

Are there any examples you know of, which involves any cases on inexplicable faults in what we know to be scientifically true?

 

When that happens, it is an indication that what has been deemed scientifically true is potentially no longer true. There are plenty of examples of this from Galileo to the present.

[Level_One]

so in other words, logic cannot be incorrect - only the information that is put into the logical equation. 

Elegantly put.