Getting to the Truth - is logic & reason the only way??

[Pelafina]

I used to believe that in order to get to the truth you must use the tools of logic and evidence to get there.  But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%.  For example, there are many questions still left unanswered after reason and evidence and science is applied.  The truth is many times left unknown, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

So my question is, what if you can get to the truth using something other than logic?  How do you know that this new tool is invalid?

 

What if intuition or feelings get you to the truth?  What if I provide you with many examples where the tool of intuition/feelings got people to the truth?  What if you even provide me with more examples?

 

How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?

 

 

[thebeardslastcall]

Sure you can get to the truth without logic and reason, but without logic and reason how will you know that's what you've got or be able to functionally share it? You can get rich by winning the lottery, but that's not a game plan for how to be successful. Someone getting lucky and winning the lottery doesn't mean their method is better than other methods towards the goal of getting money. But really what do you mean by getting to truth without logic and reason? You can guess that the Earth is circling the Sun prior to any evidence or reason to come to that conclusion, but it's just a guess. Guessing is a steady and necessary part of life, so it's logical to guess since you can't know everything or have all the relevant details to make the 100% optimal choice. We're just squirming are way forward and using science to up our game where we can, but there's a logic and reason to both methods. It's still logic even if it's based on a very minimal amount of information, but we must still understand in the end when it comes to actions we're always guessing in a way. When it comes to math we can say 2+2 always equals 4, but in life it's like you can use logic to know 2+2=4, but to determine what is a 2 in an infinite reality to logically conclude the answer is 4 may be a guess based on a reasonable probability.

 

 

But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%. 

 

With all that said, this statement here is your biggest error. People aren't rational in the universal philosophical sense. They're partially rational at best. Life is rational to the degree that rationality continues or propagates life.

[Mister Mister]

I used to believe that in order to get to the truth you must use the tools of logic and evidence to get there.  But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%.  For example, there are many questions still left unanswered after reason and evidence and science is applied.  The truth is many times left unknown, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

So my question is, what if you can get to the truth using something other than logic?  How do you know that this new tool is invalid?

 

What if intuition or feelings get you to the truth?  What if I provide you with many examples where the tool of intuition/feelings got people to the truth?  What if you even provide me with more examples?

 

How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?

 

Intuition and feelings are a key to get to the truth about YOURSELF, not the universe at large.

The difference is falsifiability.  The importance of logic isn't that it somehow tells you de facto what is true - there are many things which we don't know, and may never know that logic and empiricism are not able to magically illuminate - but the real usefulness of logic is that it tells you what ISN'T true.  Philosophy is like a sandblaster, which scrubs away the tenuous, the grit and grime, all but the most solid of substances.  So yes, you can point to instances where feelings and intuition have pointed to the truth, just like you can point to instances where a person guessed a coin flip 5 times in a row, or where a horoscope was very accurate.  But you can also point to many instances where feelings obscure the truth. people FEEL that their tribe is right and superior to all other tribes, people FEEL that the Earth is flat, people FEEL that the military and police protect them, people FEEL that the welfare state is moral and necessary.

 

One person might feel that the earth is at the center of the universe, another person feels the earth  and planets go round the sun.  So how do we negotiate this difference?  This is why we need philosophy

 

 

[WasatchMan]

Its not the only way to get there, but it is there only methodical way to get there and the only way to know once you get there it is true.

[Will Torbald]

I used to believe that in order to get to the truth you must use the tools of logic and evidence to get there.  But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%.  For example, there are many questions still left unanswered after reason and evidence and science is applied.  The truth is many times left unknown, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

So my question is, what if you can get to the truth using something other than logic?  How do you know that this new tool is invalid?

 

What if intuition or feelings get you to the truth?  What if I provide you with many examples where the tool of intuition/feelings got people to the truth?  What if you even provide me with more examples?

 

How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?

 

Some questions are simply the wrong kind of question. If your question isn't logical, your answer can't be logical. That doesn't mean logic, reason, and evidence are incapable of finding the truth. It means you are incapable of asking logical questions in the first place.

[dsayers]

I used to believe that in order to get to the truth you must use the tools of logic and evidence to get there.  But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%.

How can you describe somebody that rejects logic as rational? If logic doesn't do what you think it should do, wouldn't tossing it out be the logical thing to do? It's always funny to listen to people use logic and reason to usurp logic and reason.

 

What if intuition or feelings get you to the truth?  What if I provide you with many examples where the tool of intuition/feelings got people to the truth?  What if you even provide me with more examples?

 

How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?

A monkey can throw a dart and hit the number 4 when showed a card that says 2+2=? This doesn't mean it's a sound methodology for arriving at the truth. We know that intuition/feelings are not sufficient for determining the truth because humans have the capacity for error.

 

As for your last question, what tool are you referring to? Once upon a time, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Later, it came to be known that the sun was the center of our solar system. Maybe tomorrow, somebody will be able to prove that up isn't up. All we can do is relate what is true based on what we know. Since logic, reason, and evidence don't appear to be lacking, I ask again: What tool do you have that would outstrip it?

 

Obviously if you could find a better tool, it would be a better tool. To entertain the possibility of improvement, you must first be able to imagine a flaw. Maybe you could identify the flaw before asking what if?

[Pelafina]

Some questions are simply the wrong kind of question. If your question isn't logical, your answer can't be logical. That doesn't mean logic, reason, and evidence are incapable of finding the truth. It means you are incapable of asking logical questions in the first place.

 

Some answers are simply the wrong answer which means you are incapable of answering questions.

[Will Torbald]

Some answers are simply the wrong answer which means you are incapable of answering questions.

And the only way you know it is the wrong answer is with logic.

[A4E]

Internet.

[Pelafina]

And the only way you know it is the wrong answer is with logic.

I'm sure you can think of many examples when someone used intuition or emotions and arrived at the correct answer.

[Matt Shrooms]

Before we rush in and try to argue about this, shouldn't we first and foremost define 'truth'?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall Stefan describing 'truth' as a relationship between our ideas and objective, emperical reality.

If we were to follow through with this definition in mind, how would feelings get us to the truth about something?

Can anyone think of an example?

"I feel that the pen I'm seeing is of the color blue"?

 

I'm of the opinion, that emotions are quite complicated. By that I mean that our emotions have an effect on what and how we think but also how and what we think have an effect on what emotions we experience.

Wouldn't this be like the chicken vs the egg dillema?

[thebeardslastcall]

By that I mean that our emotions have an effect on what and how we think but also how and what we think have an effect on what emotions we experience.

Wouldn't this be like the chicken vs the egg dillema?

Not really. You're creating a false dichotomy.

I'm sure you can think of many examples when someone used intuition or emotions and arrived at the correct answer.

The right answer for the wrong reason. You're not addressing any of the issues people are bringing up. Are you interesting in understanding new things or are you just trying to demote the relevance and meaning of logic and reason? Are you currently being pressured to join a religion or part of one already and being pressured to solidify your position(s)? What's going on in your life that makes this topic relevant to you now? Intuition is based on a complex logic, so calling it illogical is a false distinction. You know how to raise your hand and the process is quite logical and reliable, but explaining it with spoken reason and logic is another matter.

[dsayers]

Wouldn't this be like the chicken vs the egg dillema?

There is no such dilemma. Every offspring is a mutant compared to its progenitors. Thus the chicken had to come first.

[labmath2]

I used to believe that in order to get to the truth you must use the tools of logic and evidence to get there.  But the success of logic getting a rational person to the truth is nowhere near 100%.  For example, there are many questions still left unanswered after reason and evidence and science is applied.  The truth is many times left unknown, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

So my question is, what if you can get to the truth using something other than logic?  How do you know that this new tool is invalid?

 

What if intuition or feelings get you to the truth?  What if I provide you with many examples where the tool of intuition/feelings got people to the truth?  What if you even provide me with more examples?

 

How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?

There is only one problem with your entire post, you did not look up definitions of truth, logic and evidence. Truth and evidence are intrinsically linked, as truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality, and evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Now logic gets a bit more complicated, reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. It doesn't appear that logic is restricted to some particular method, but it must adhere to strict principles of validity. Of course the question is what are these strict principles of validity, that is where things get a bit more complicated. 

 

As for the last question, intuition, the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning, is better or worse in what sense. To determine if something is better or worse, there has to be some measurable quality, unless you want to intuitively say one is better or worse than the other, which is sort of screwy.

[Jer]

Peter Boghossian has written extensively on methods for getting to truth.

[brucethecollie]

Pelafina I think that intuition and feelings are rooted in logic, they can be misleading but always used in conjunction with our conscious reasoning, they can be a constant asset.  So for example, I've heard that intuition is when we know something but don't have full awareness or clarity regarding that knowledge.  This can be misinterpreted and manipulated and by a large number of factors so personally, whenever intuition hits or my feelings are strong about something, I apply logic and reasoning.  If I don't, I can go the wrong way.  But by acknowledging what seems to be vague knowledge trying to work itself out or my senses picking up information that I'd classify as incomplete raw data then I can work it out to success with logic and reasoning and only through logic and reasoning.  Does that make any sense?

 

For example, when I was about 9 or 10, I visited a farm with my family.  I wandered off with a friend to an abandoned and rotting barn.  We climbed to the loft area when I told her suddenly that I felt we needed to get down and out immediately.  She reacted to my urgency by following me out right away.  As soon as we cleared the entrance the place entirely collapsed.  Then she couldn't stop talking about how I intuited our potential danger and got us out just in time.  I explained later that I had noticed a strong moldy smell when we walked in...saw wood lying on the ground, thought that no one had been there in a really long time by the tall grass surrounding it.  When we climbed up I heard only one creak-but it was enough to give me the thought, "what if that one creak means there could be structural issues and this could collapse?"  And so while I wasn't thinking that the place would collapse, all the information my senses took in all amounted to me thinking we better be safe rather than sorry and just not take any chances.  I was surprised when the place fell but I also realized that I received all the subtle (to a kid) cues that I needed to stay safe-as long as I didn't ignore them.  My friend might have been following her intuition by following me so quickly without her typical slew of questions and stubborness (she was always a daredevil).  This is a really silly example of course, but I think that when people say they had the intuition for something, I think they are actually relying on subtle information that they already own but maybe don't have in a fully conscious and organized and clear way.

 

I have followed my gut feeling without using logic before and it was a monstrous fail since we are human and totally capable of paranoia and tunnel vision and what not.

[Mantis]

Life is a combination of both.

 

You need logic and reason, aka the trivium for sure or else you are a bumbling idiot in the forest looking for elves.

 

Then you need your feeling apartus. What is being communicated to me that is not in the language of logic yo. Intuition speaks in images not words. Form function form. They are two forms of information yet different. Combine them both then boast.

[ResidingOnEarth]

brucethecollie:

 

Your post made me think of how important it is to raise children in a rational and peaceful way.  Your story highlighted how important intuition can be and in your case how it potentially saved your life.  If that intuition is ultimately built from and rooted in your prior knowledge, understanding and conclusions about the world, then having correct knowledge, an accurate understanding and rational conclusions about the world are more likely to yield intuition that is correct and therefore useful.  Even life saving.

 

I've been thinking quite a bit about what dsayers said in another thread about how teaching a child to correctly reason using sound logical principles and reliable evidence is essential to the survival of that child.  If people do have a positive moral obligation to provide a child with the things they need to survive in the world after they have left home, then it follows, that not providing a child with the ability to correctly reason (when you know how to) is immoral.

 

Pelafina:

 

Implicit in your question "How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?" is the assumption that intuition can not be a logical process.  Are you sure that intuition cannot be logical?  I'm not sure.

 

I know that a person can consciously reason in a logical manor.

 

I know that a computer can be programmed to be logical and will then faithfully execute that logical program on a given input, producing a corresponding, logically derived output.

 

I consider intuition to be a subconscious feature of the mind.

 

One definition of 'intuition' is:

"Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes."

 

So if we were to use that definition of 'intuition', it is at-least possible, that intuition could be a subconscious rational and logical process.  If true, I would expect the degree to which intuition is a logical process to vary between people depending largely on how logical they are consciously.  This is something that could be easily tested for.

[Samrobertsemail]

 

Here is some logical truth and philosophy.

 

 

Logical (Left-Brain) Reality - Quantum Reality

 

The human mind system works like a quantum computer so in order to function properly needs to exist within unity or wholeness otherwise information isn’t processed properly and incorrect conclusions are reached.

 

At its most basic level quantum reality is processed in terms of qubits, which is a unit of quantum information and is similar to a binary system where information is stored in two possible states eg 0 and 1 however qubits are different in that they can also exist as a superposition of both.

 

Due to the fall of man, humanity mainly exists within the lower mind or ego and is thus unable to process quantum reality effectively with most decisions based on fear instead on love. Over time trillions of incorrect quantum binary decisions were made to co-create literally an "upside down" civilization.

 

Then layer upon layer of complexity is added in an effort to "techno-fix" this reality without ever recognizing its underlying foundational flaws and allowing a basic restructuring.

 

 

 

Upside Down World

 

Examples of upside down world include:

Debt based scarcity economy as opposed to a positive light based gift economy. This leads to a natural pooling of money (energy) towards the elites who forever funnel energy out of the system leading to a never ending scarcity.

Health care based upon secondary treatment with toxic chemicals as opposed to primary prevention.

Use of non-renewable fossil based fuels as opposed to alternative energies.

Exponential growth of population and the economy as opposed to stability.

Patriarchal based society as opposed to a symmetrical based society.

Widespread war and violence instead of peace.

Separation of people / ego instead of community / wholeness of the human psyche.

Mothers of children provided no financial support as opposed to bankers earning millions from the interest funneled from the masses of humanity.

Widespread degradation of the ecosystem instead of living in harmony with nature.

 

 

http://humanrealitymatrix.weebly.com/

[dsayers]

Here is some logical truth and philosophy.

 

 

Logical (Left-Brain) Reality - Quantum Reality

 

The human mind system works like a quantum computer so in order to function properly needs to exist within unity or wholeness

In what way is "needs to exist within unity or wholeness" actually saying something, let alone "logical truth and philosophy"?

 

Examples of upside down world include:

Debt based scarcity economy as opposed to a positive light based gift economy. This leads to a natural pooling of money (energy) towards the elites who forever funnel energy out of the system leading to a never ending scarcity.

Health care based upon secondary treatment with toxic chemicals as opposed to primary prevention.

...

Exponential growth of population and the economy as opposed to stability.

...

Widespread war and violence instead of peace.

None of these items in your list are the result of voluntary behaviors. You might as well include the handing over of wallets to muggers and call that a feature of an upside down world.

 

Use of non-renewable fossil based fuels as opposed to alternative energies.

...

Widespread degradation of the ecosystem instead of living in harmony with nature.

"Nature" unchecked will destroy you. So "harmony with nature" is the upside down (read: false) part here. The electricity that has kept you alive and allowed for you to communicate via the internet as provided by use of fossil fuel. The only reason we have the LUXURY of looking for alternative energy sources is because we're using RENEWABLE fossil fuels to survive long enough to evolve to the point of being able to. This quote here is just repeating narrative. I was shocked to learn how even solar energy isn't as renewable as it seems from the uneducated perspective:

 

 

Patriarchal based society as opposed to a symmetrical based society.

...

Mothers of children provided no financial support as opposed to bankers earning millions from the interest funneled from the masses of humanity.

This does nothing to address how a woman getting pregnant obligates others to fund her. But that is exactly what happens, making this claim upside down. That this happens is one of the many ways somebody who was interested in "logical truth and philosophy" could figure out that we do not live in a patriarchy. In fact, there's no reason to suspect we do except that some people say it, revealing that you are just parroting a narrative.

[Samrobertsemail]

It is the appreciation consciousness is a dynamic variable. You can ascend in consciousness towards wholeness or descend towards fragmentation and mind control.

 

By voluntary behaviours I assume you mean conscious behaviour? That is the point of helping the collective towards more conscious behaviours.

 

After peak oil exponential growth will no longer be possible using fossil fuels so the whole dynamic of civilisation changes. Peak oil occurs once in the history of humanity so it is not some trivial turning point.

 

'Obligates others to fund her' it is the recognition that society should look after everybody because if you want a healthy civilisation you need healthy citizens and the best way to ensure that is to ensure healthy children.

[dsayers]

It is the appreciation consciousness is a dynamic variable. You can ascend in consciousness towards wholeness or descend towards fragmentation and mind control.

Appreciating something is not an example of "logical truth and philosophy." I think you need to define what you mean by consciousness. There's consciousness, unconsciousness, and subconsciousness. In the context of somebody on anesthesia, you could argue that the path between consciousness and unconsciousness is a continuum. However, neither state could be described as "wholeness" or "fragmented." Also, what does mind control look like? I wasn't aware that was possible.

 

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so you'll have to let me know who close I come. What we do with that which we are conscious of is not attributed to the consciousness, but our voluntary behavior afterwards. For example, we can be presented with the proposition that taxation is theft. At which point, we can choose to consider it or choose to reject it without consideration. These cannot be described as "wholeness" or "fragmentation." Calling things by their proper names is the basis for SELF-KNOWLEDGE, which does indeed enhance a person's ability to do just about anything else. But this explanation isn't at all mystical, which is why I find it more appealing. With this explanation, we understand that most likely, what you describe as mind control, is actually co-operative. Otherwise, you would be saying that person X is more responsible for person Y's behavior than Y is, which cannot be universalized.

 

By voluntary behaviours I assume you mean conscious behaviour?

For a behavior to be voluntary, the person engaging in it must have the capacity to not engage in that behavior. Breathing is autonomic and therefore not voluntary. Debt-based economies, health care focused on cure rather than prevention, population incentivized to breed in excess, and widespread war/violence (the bullet points you raised) are all effects of the State and therefore not voluntary behaviors. You attributed this to a bunch of mysticism, which isn't accurate, and only serves to mask the truth.

 

'Obligates others to fund her' it is the recognition that society should look after everybody because if you want a healthy civilisation you need healthy citizens and the best way to ensure that is to ensure healthy children.

There's no question in my mind that the peaceful raising of children stands to solve every man-made problem. However, regarding unchosen positive obligations* as ethical would be harming a child by teaching it anti-rationality. Your position ignores that your proposition cannot be universalized. For example, in the event that two women get pregnant at the same time, which one should we compel to pay for the other? Also, you speak as if pregnancy is an affliction and not the reasonably expected outcome of voluntary behavior.

 

Finally, I don't think you realize that you've contradicting yourself. You simultaneously claim that breeding in excess is problematic AND that people should be compelled to fund pregnant women. When you don't hold women and the men who impregnate them responsible for the reasonably expected outcome of their voluntary behavior, you incentivize them to breed in excess because you artificially lower their risk and increase their returns. First rule of economics is that people respond to incentives.

 

For a fantastic explanation of unchosen positive obligation, I highly recommend this video by an FDR listener:

 

[Samrobertsemail]

As we approach peak oil, limits to growth, overpopulation, ecosuicide, climate change etc civilisation changes from a stable system to a nonlinear system as it moves to a new equilibrium.

 

It is at this point you are left with a physical reality composed of a number of variables and binary decisions that can trend towards fear or love.

 

Each individual has free will to move their own consciousness and through the expression of their consciousness move the collective towards either direction.

 

This is a simple logical truth and philosophy.

[ResidingOnEarth]

As we approach peak oil, limits to growth, overpopulation, ecosuicide, climate change etc civilisation changes from a stable system to a nonlinear system as it moves to a new equilibrium.

 

Fact is, you are not making your case in a logical and philosophical way.

 

Here's a question: how do you factor, coal, nuclear, solar, tidal, geothermal, wind and hyrdroelectric energy sources into this idea of yours?  In the event of "peak oil" (a supply change), the demand for energy will not change.  It seems that you think that in the event of "peak oil", people wont switch over to getting their energy from other sources. 

[dsayers]

This is a simple logical truth and philosophy.

I see obfuscation, double-speak, and mysticism. I've offered rational challenges, which you have deflected from or avoided altogether. Until you make use of truth and philosophy as you're persistent in claiming (show me, don't tell me), I am convinced that truth is not what you seek.

[Samrobertsemail]

I didn't mean to be avoidant however there is often little point having long winded debates which often degenerate into flaming wars.

 

A lot of the problem is that people don't realise that consciousness is a variable and that higher States of consciousness are possible. The potential for this change to occur is related to many factors and if people are locked in one state there is little point is trying to force the issue.

 

Better to just point out that there are variables and binary decisions and that you are using free will to decide. You are then accused of mysticism talking about consciousness but there is really nothing more universal and logical than consciousness, free will and love.

 

Energy is another main problem with understanding. As you say the supply and demand characteristics will come into conflict causing a major stressor to equilibrium. It is not a case of die off but one of careful understanding. Fossil fuels are by far the dominant energy ?85% and their net energy or energy returned on energy invested is very high 10-100x. After peak oil you are looking at a certain depletion rate each and every year from then on of the dominant energy supply with the highest EROEI.

 

Civilisation with naturally turn to other sources of energy however their EROEI is much lower so the probability of overcoming the depletion rate and adding an exponential amount on top to continue the current state of affairs is basically zero from my understanding however only time will tell but it is something to be aware of as net energy and how it relates to economics and free will in civilisation can be a tricky concept to nail down.

[rosencrantz]

University of London physicist David Bohm believes that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

 

From your blog. The opposite is true. Bohm suggested a deterministic QM. It's the same problem over and over again. People who want to seem deep use physics without understanding the basic concepts. 

 

 

Exponential growth of population and the economy as opposed to stability.

 

Hey I know a lot of countries that stagnate both in population and economy but I dont think you'd want to live in them. 

[AccuTron]

As we approach ... climate change ...

 

Oops, somebody didn't do their reading in FDR forums about climate change  fraud.

[dsayers]

I didn't mean to be avoidant however there is often little point having long winded debates which often degenerate into flaming wars.

Such manipulative language! I didn't read past this point. Thank you for front-loading your further lack of integrity.

 

"Long-winded debate" is not only an assertion, but falsely representing what is basic communication skills. You said something that isn't clear, and I asked for clarification. You claimed up is down, and I challenged the validity of your claim. When you call these things a "long-winded debate," you are confessing that you're going to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. This is bigotry and is incompatible with the truth.

 

Referencing flaming wars means you're not having a conversation with me, but rather you are bringing unprocessed trauma to the table while pretending to have a conversation with me. Telling a person how they're going to behave before they have an opportunity for that behavior is erasing them. I won't let you do that.