Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macswitcha2, Jun 13, 2010.
Has anyone read David Hume's issue with induction?
eg. MacRumors members claiming all other leaks have been fake, so this must definitely be a fake... Oh wait, it was the real thing.
No but you could at least provide a link for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Thanks! I should of put a link. Anyone has an opinion on Hume's thinking about induction? I raise this question because much of these discussions, well, any discussion or debate really, relies on the ways we reason.
Except when the discussion is about faith.
Not by invoking the supernatural.
I had to look up the "Laws of Logic" as I did not know what those laws are. Here's what I found...
Laws of Logic
In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought":
1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush.
2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.
Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.
3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.
For example, the disjunctive proposition "Either it is raining or it is not raining" must be true. Also, if it is true that it is raining, then the proposition "Either it is raining, or I own a car" must also be true. It really doesn't matter what the second phrase is.
The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.
How this contradicts materialism and/or atheism is beyond me.
Perhaps the OP, or somebody else might explain.
Induction problem? Logics issue? Just plain wrong? No need to fear, ass logics will always solve the problem.
Surely some mistake here: the fact that it is raining does not of itself have any bearing on my car ownership. "Either it is raining, or I own a car" may be untrue for both alternatives.
Hey, I'm just trying to understand what these laws are. That does seem pretty non-sensical to me too. I must have quoted a bogus source.
As an art school drop-out, who only took one philosophy class in junior college, I need a little help here.
Are the laws of logic material or immaterial?
Material. Without a brain and intellect to describe and comprehend them, what is there?
Some atheists get into long (and to me, dreary) arguments that they believe use these laws of logic to disprove God, spirituality, the existence of the supernatural, etc. The fundamental flaw in these arguments is inevitably that these things are posited to be supernatural in the first place, and therefore not constrained by a discussion based on the natural law.
A secondary problem is that, of the three "laws" of logic, two of them are violated in the real world (in quantum mechanics, in which non-contradiction and the excluded middle principle both fail to apply) and the third one (law #1) is largely useless if rigorously applied, and therefore rarely ever rigorously applied.
The laws of logic are material in nature? How so? Are you implying that the laws of logic only exist inside of a brain? Please explain because this is the first time ever that I have heard someone actually say that the laws of logic are material in nature. Please explain.
Applying the laws of logic to this thread, one reaches the conclusion that it's exactly the same as your previous locked thread. Albeit thinly veiled.
They are mere thoughts... inventions and by-products of our brains and they are by-products of our existing in a physical world.
1. The law of identity: x is x.
2. The law of non-contradiction: x cannot be simultaneously not x.
Take away the physical world in which these conditions exist, and the intellect to understand the concepts and what do you have left?
A thread such as this.
Like I said... art school drop-out... it's the best I can do.
But, as a Buddhist, there is precious little that exists outside the conditioned world. And I highly doubt that little inventions of the human mind qualify for that.
A Caucasian hippy carrying his lunch?
Wait, are you implying that the laws of logic is a creation of the brain? If so, I will show you just how bogus is that claim. However, even with that assertion, you stated that the laws of logic are material in nature. I did not ask you if a brain was material but if laws of logic were material or immaterial and you said they're material. Your response did not show this to be true unless perhaps you don't know what materiel means.
If the laws of logic are material than where are they? Have you ever ran into a law, tripped over a law, bumped your head on a law of logic? Please, explain.
Are thoughts material?
Have you ever ran into a thought, tripped over a thought, bumped your head on a thought?
No, thoughts are not material in nature they're immaterial.
I'm going to assume that you believe that the laws of logic are something that happens or materially part of the brain, am I right?
Well, if that's your definition, then that changes things.
I'd say thoughts are material because their existence is derived from and conditioned by material things.
That makes no sense. I guess you're truly a materialist, or at least try to be, but let's see how consistent you are with your materialist world view. So nothing is immaterial according to your argument correct?
Either or, let's get back to this whole "idea" that the laws of logic are material in nature and are part of the human brain.
How does what happens in your brain has to happen in my brain when you and I don't have the same brain? If a law is material than its not a law. It ceases to be anything like a law, especially the laws of logic.
You also said that the laws of logic are inventions. In other words, the laws of logic are social conventions. If so then come up with a law and I come up with some of my own and ask the people which laws they like. That will be ridiculous right?
The laws of logic are immaterial abstract entities that are universal, unchanging, and invariant truths.