Was logic invented or discovered?

[ManMachine]

Or we could doubt that it does and see where that takes us.

It takes you no where. Without 'a priori' knowledge radical empiricism has nothing with which to cement experiences into knowledge.

Some folks love that word, presupposition, and it gets tossed around alot, but a great many "presuppositions" are no such thing, by simple definition.

You have not shown, by either logic or evidence, the falsity of my statement "the idea of a universe that is inherently orderly is a necessary axiom for rational thought."

I'd suggest the earliest forms of logic came along with the evolution of language, primarily syntax.

MM

[The Grand Nudger]

It takes you no where.

Which might help to explain the path we've taken, eh?

Without 'a priori' knowledge radical empiricism has nothing with which to cement experiences into knowledge.

Should it? Nevertheless, determining what is or is not "a priori" knowledge has a long history, and the things we've filled that category with have changed over time. Some things once considered "a priori" are know known to be completely in error.

You have not shown, by either logic or evidence, the falsity of my statement "the idea of a universe that is inherently orderly is a necessary axiom for rational thought."

Should I have to? It's your baby, do work. I simply mentioned that the notion of an inherently orderly universe is not a presupposition. Not for me anyway, is it presupposition for you? How so?

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='417579' dateline='1363741984']...determining what is or is not "a priori" knowledge has a long history, and the things we've filled that category with have changed over time. Some things once considered "a priori" are know known to be completely in error...[quote]Previous scientific theories were wrong, therefore scientific theories are not valid. I don't think so.

[quote='Rhythm' pid='417579' dateline='1363741984']Should I have to? It's your baby, do work. I simply mentioned that the notion of an inherently orderly universe is not a presupposition. Not for me anyway, is it presupposition for you? How so?[/quote]Should you? Yes you should. It is an axiom, a self-evident truth. It stands so long as you are unable to show that it is not an axiom. And if you dismiss the notion of an inherently orderly universe that makes you an absurdist. Which also means that you are absurd and unworthy of engaging in rational discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't reject an inherently orderly universe Chad, I reject it's use as an axiom or presupposition. We've come just a tad bit further than simply assuming that the universe is inherently orderly, or excusing an unwillingness to demonstrate that order by preferring to call it an axiom.

If you prefer, supposing that the universe were not inherently orderly, rational thought would still be entirely possible, conforming instead to those observations about how that universe seamed to behave (if it were some "other-than-inherently-orderly" manner). Similarly, one needn't make the assumption - or even have knowledge that the universe is inherently orderly for logic and reason that is based on an inherently orderly universe to work or make sense within that universe. It isn't the assumption or our knowledge of it that makes it work........

[genkaus]

In the spirit of the pi thread here: was pi invented or discovered?, what are your thoughts on logic's existence?

This also comes about because someone, somewhere claimed that logic exists regardless of anything else, hence something can exist out of the Universe, which poofs a god into this kind of existence.

Logic is invented - in the sense that it requires a conscious mind to conceive of it and cannot exist without it.

---

It's also a system derived from the (many) observation (s) that our universe is such a universe.

That derivation from collective consideration of observations would not occur without the assumption of a knowable universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

An assumption first made with little in the way of support, not so much an assumption any longer, but still subject to criticism nevertheless. Perhaps it can't be, but it sure seems as though it can be (and in the spirit of allowing for such a thing - if it can't be, it would seem to matter very little to us eh, the illusion is complete), judging specifically by the results of our attempting to do so. If the assumption was made, a system was formed around it that was consistent and non-contradictory to itself - but did not yield reliable results - what would you conclude?

The implication of a statement such as this, about the necessity of assumption, is that just because we happened to have done it this way, or because some of us had little choice but to do it this way (again, are we still going to call this an assumption, is that all that we can elevate the statement to?), that it could not have been accomplished another way, or that the assumption itself has some bearing on how or why the system built out of it works. I call shenanigans on all counts - and I know that this isn't directly tied to your response t me, more jut something that floated into my head.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I call shenanigans on all counts - and I know that this isn't directly tied to your response t me, more jut something that floated into my head.

That's okay because nothing compels you to conform to reason in an absurd universe...you can just float around according the whims of your religion, hostile.

[Confused Ape]

Logic is a human concept. It didn't exist before our species got here and it will cease to exist if we become extinct.

[The Grand Nudger]

The concept, as described and as understood by human beings will cease to exist if we cease to exist. That which it describes will not. Should a specie of Mollusks take our place they will simply reinvent the wheel. The concept/the thing.

---

That's okay because nothing compels you to conform to reason in an absurd universe...you can just float around according the whims of your religion, hostile.

Similarly nothing compels you to show your work. You dont feel comfortable demonstrating that it is so, ergo you prefer to call it an axiom, Shenanigans.

[KichigaiNeko]