Logic vs Evidence

[Simon Moon]

Can these things potentially contradict each other?

Logic is a formal method to detect if an argument is valid. But validity does not mean a thing without sound premises.

It is possible to create logical syllogisms that are valid, yet do not prove a thing.

1. All blue flerms come from the planet Blorn.
2. Joe is a blue flerm.
Conclusion - Joe comes from the planet Blorn.

This is a valid logical argument. Problem is, without sound premises, I proved nothing.

For a logic to be meaningful, it has to be fed with sound premises.

And do you know what constitutes sound premises? They have to be supported by....wait for it.... demonstrable evidence.

[TreeSapNest]

And do you know what constitutes sound premises? They have to be supported by....wait for it.... demonstrable evidence.

Solipsism gets us all in the end. :-)

---

Can these things potentially contradict each other?

I think yes, and often. Our reasoning in the best of circumstances is only as good as our understanding of the world. I happens all the time that what we once thought true turns out to be untrue.

[Mudhammam]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, logic is the constituent upon which our mind perceives reality, and hence, precedes evidence. So, we look out into the world, and we notice that things in our immediate experience are organized in such a way that seem sensible to us, and we describe this organization by means of concepts that try to reach into the heart of the matter (in a very literal sense). This is true of mathematics, of which a great deal seems to be little more than "mental masturbation" and yet the seed produced from it is often proven, through experimental evidence, extraordinary fruitful in describing the inner workings of nature. On the other hand, when evidence about reality contradicts our intuition about what is logical, we realize that our minds are severely limited in terms of perceiving reality as it truly is. Does this mean that our minds are inherently irrational or that nature is inherently irrational? Is the apparent sensibility of immediate experience, that is, when it seems to obey logical principles, a feature of nature that our minds are able to perfectly replicate through perception and to a lesser extent, conception, or do our minds create an (illusory) organization in which a fundamentally chaotic and nonsensical reality only seems rational but that in actuality says little about the true nature of things beyond what is needed for the survival of our genes? That seems to be the major difference between a Platonic philosophy and an existential one. Idealism or realism... Which is true?

[DeistPaladin]

Solipsism gets us all in the end. :-)

It technically has us now. Solipsism is technically true and stupid to spend much time thinking about ...unless you're a sci-fi writer.

I assume reality and my memories are as I perceive them without evidence to the make me doubt it. If I didn't, then there's no point in discussing anything.

[robvalue]

If you want to see a creationist trying to understand the assumptions necessary to address solipsism, here's a video which is funny but painful and permanently damaging to watch. It's Thunderf00t representing reality versus Eric Hovind representing circular circles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BfsHsVGNg

[TreeSapNest]

Perhaps we are missing Dimaniac's question entirely.

Can a conclusion both sound and valid contradict reality?

[Chad32]

I suppose something can sound logical, even if evidence contradicts it. A known thief is accused of stealing something, but it turns out he wasn't guilty. It's logical to suspect him, even if he didn't do it.

[DeistPaladin]

If you want to see a creationist trying to understand the assumptions necessary to address solipsism, here's a video which is funny but painful and permanently damaging to watch. It's Thunderf00t representing reality versus Eric Hovind representing circular circles.

Presuppositional Apologists ARE solipsists. They say we can't be sure of anything (solipsism) and that's why we need Jesus, cause that follows, right?

Nyth, nyth you don't know everything therefore Jesus.

[Mudhammam]

They say we can't be sure of anything (solipsism)

I would understand that to be skepticism...

[DeistPaladin]

They say we can't be sure of anything (solipsism)

I would understand that to be skepticism...

Skepticism is reasonable doubt. Solipsism is wanting things to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you showed me faith healing was real and performed it as a repeated experiment in double-blind studies under medical peer review, with the positive results of the study published in a respected peer-reviewed medical journal, I would believe. The burden of proof would have been met.

If you showed the same thing to a solipsist, they would claim not to believe anything aside from their own existence and that they have sensations which may not be accurate and memories which may not be accurate.