BARAAJanuary 27, 2021 at 01:512350 views9 comments
I've found that plenty of members on the forum have deep problems with trusting logic or doubt the appliance of logical laws to the outside world which make me ask...........
Comments (9)
creativesoulJanuary 27, 2021 at 02:01#4933280 likes
What are you talking about when you say "laws of logic"?
creativesoulJanuary 27, 2021 at 02:02#4933290 likes
What about the rules of logical entailment; do those count as the laws of logic?
doubt the appliance of logical laws to the outside world
you do realise that this proposition actually says a lot? That the connection between logic and reality is a deeply contested issue in contemporary philosophy?
This manifests as 'relativism' in philosophy. It is a consequence of the abandonment of the pre-modern idea of the divine origin of natural law. It is associated with the philosophical writings of Nietszche, in particular, but has nowadays becomed virtually assumed in secular culture.
Instead, modern culture tend to see logical laws in terms of (say) mental constructs which generate useful results, without necessarily referring to an external world. 'Instrumentalism' in philosophy of science is rather like that. It's not to claim logic isn't effective, but that it is limited in its scope as a matter of principle, and that it's innacurate to claim that it has any kind of absolute referent in the so-called 'real world'.
'Instrumentalism' in philosophy of science is rather like that. It's not to claim logic isn't effective, but that it is limited in its scope as a matter of principle, and that it's innacurate to claim that it has any kind of absolute referent in the so-called 'real world'.
And this always let me very confused and sad...... Like HOW ON EARTH they can't realize that they should abandon science if they believe such a thing..... science is literally meaningless if accompanied by having such a belief.
god must be atheistJanuary 27, 2021 at 03:10#4933620 likes
There are a lot of people on the forum who are introspective, immersed in deep thought or else soaring with the eagles in pinnacles of sacrosanct truths such as "Socrates was never wrong" and their immediate social environment encouraged them to take philosophy, or join a philosophy forum, seeing they never said anything comprehensible to the common person, so the common person figured that the place of these geniuses is on a philosophy forum with other geniuses.
This site is well moderated. But try some of the other philosophy sites, and your hair will stand on end.
Like HOW ON EARTH they can't realize that they should abandon science if they believe such a thing..... science is literally meaningless if accompanied by having such a belief.
When Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were debating their discoveries in atomic physics - you may recall they were basically the founders of modern atomic physics - Heisenberg, who was Bohr’s junior by many years, said that he would sometimes be reduced to tears by the fierce disagreements they were having over the interpretation of their findings.
Likewise, Einstein and Bohr debated for decades, until the 1940’s when Einstein was at the end of his career. Einstein couldn’t accept the implications of quantum physics, genius though he was. It was too much of a challenge to his native realism, which firmly believed in a fixed objective reality that could never be defined, in part, by the act of observing it. ‘Does the moon continue to exist’, he protested, ‘when nobody’s looking at it?’ This of course is a rhetorical question, but the fact that he felt obliged to ask it is what is significant.
I mention these examples in particular, because I see them as being part of the advent of post-modernism. ‘All that is solid melts into the air’, as one of the books about it was titled. It’s hard to get a grip on it, but important. One of the books I discovered courtesy of Internet forums which helped me to get a handle on it was The Truth About the Truth, Walt Anderson.
You have to be prepared for the sense of the floor falling away, however. It’s just one of those things about living in this period of time.
Does the book you linked revolve around arguing for instrumentalism?
No, it's much broader. It's a series of essays by and about many different people. You can see the ToC in the link. I only mentioned instrumentalism because it's one illustration of a broader underlying issue.
creativesoulJanuary 27, 2021 at 04:02#4933820 likes
Comments (9)
you do realise that this proposition actually says a lot? That the connection between logic and reality is a deeply contested issue in contemporary philosophy?
This manifests as 'relativism' in philosophy. It is a consequence of the abandonment of the pre-modern idea of the divine origin of natural law. It is associated with the philosophical writings of Nietszche, in particular, but has nowadays becomed virtually assumed in secular culture.
Instead, modern culture tend to see logical laws in terms of (say) mental constructs which generate useful results, without necessarily referring to an external world. 'Instrumentalism' in philosophy of science is rather like that. It's not to claim logic isn't effective, but that it is limited in its scope as a matter of principle, and that it's innacurate to claim that it has any kind of absolute referent in the so-called 'real world'.
And this always let me very confused and sad...... Like HOW ON EARTH they can't realize that they should abandon science if they believe such a thing..... science is literally meaningless if accompanied by having such a belief.
This site is well moderated. But try some of the other philosophy sites, and your hair will stand on end.
When Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were debating their discoveries in atomic physics - you may recall they were basically the founders of modern atomic physics - Heisenberg, who was Bohr’s junior by many years, said that he would sometimes be reduced to tears by the fierce disagreements they were having over the interpretation of their findings.
Likewise, Einstein and Bohr debated for decades, until the 1940’s when Einstein was at the end of his career. Einstein couldn’t accept the implications of quantum physics, genius though he was. It was too much of a challenge to his native realism, which firmly believed in a fixed objective reality that could never be defined, in part, by the act of observing it. ‘Does the moon continue to exist’, he protested, ‘when nobody’s looking at it?’ This of course is a rhetorical question, but the fact that he felt obliged to ask it is what is significant.
I mention these examples in particular, because I see them as being part of the advent of post-modernism. ‘All that is solid melts into the air’, as one of the books about it was titled. It’s hard to get a grip on it, but important. One of the books I discovered courtesy of Internet forums which helped me to get a handle on it was The Truth About the Truth, Walt Anderson.
You have to be prepared for the sense of the floor falling away, however. It’s just one of those things about living in this period of time.
Does the book you linked revolve around arguing for instrumentalism?
No, it's much broader. It's a series of essays by and about many different people. You can see the ToC in the link. I only mentioned instrumentalism because it's one illustration of a broader underlying issue.
Presupposing...
...that there is only one connection between logic and reality...
...is a problem.