FORMAL LOGIC -- Justifying that Initial Premises are TRUE

[timothyu]

In the meantime if the results are inconclusive nature seems to allow both versions to exist simultaneously... it's patient, and it doesn't mind if the process isn't always pretty.

Yes. Water eventually seeks it's own level so to speak.

 

[Stephen3141]

I would say that "valid reasoning methods" are what have been shown to work,
within our shared reality.

I don't think that there is any reason to posit abstract models for logic,
and then try them out.

Rather, I think that "logic/reason" was what was observed to work in our
shared reality, condensed into a short definition.

 

[partinobodycular]

I would say that "valid reasoning methods" are what have Benn shown to work,
within our shared reality.

I agree completely, but here's the thing... it says Catholic in your profile... how does that follow from "valid reasoning methods"? I'll grant you the "reasoning methods" part, but it's the "valid" part that I'm questioning. Yours would seem to require a whole lot of unsubstantiated premises. Which sort of flies in the face of this whole thread.

 

[Stephen3141]

I agree completely, but here's the thing... it says Catholic in your profile... how does that follow from "valid reasoning methods"? I'll grant you the "reasoning methods" part, but it's the "valid" part that I'm questioning. Yours would seem to require a whole lot of unsubstantiated premises. Which sort of flies in the face of this whole thread.

Try reading through my thread on Formal Logic.
I lay out what I think by "our shared reality".

This is not a thread on trying to defend Catholic doctrines.

 

[Stephen3141]

So, continuing with the topic of evaluating initial premises,
as to whether or not they are TRUE (they match our shared reality).

Although many Christians (and non-Christians) are ignorant of the
historical positions/models in philosophy, regarding determining what
is real, what our senses are, what we can perceive in our shared reality,
how mental operations work, how to justify that a personal opinion is
actually true...

not being aware of important discussions that have happened throughout
history on these subjects, modern people STILL create arguments in
Christian apologetics. And many of these arguments USE classic positions
that have been described by Philosophy.

So, it DOES NOT HELP to say, "I don't trust the mind, or the historic
discussions of philosophy", when you actually use methods and positions
that have been described and discussed by historical philosophers.

It is better for Christians to become familiar with the classic philosophical
discussions on these topics, and think about them.
---------- ----------

There are different historical schools in philosophy, regarding how a
proposition or experience could be "justified" as being true.

Hard Foundationalism: This is a school of thought, that attempts to
demonstrate that all "thinking" can be traced back to basic axioms, that
everyone would accept as being true. Descartes was in this camp.
[Epistemology, Wood, 85- ]

The problem with hard foundationalism is that one can always try to demonstrate whatever
"basic" axiom you may come up with, and philosophical discussions have shown that
it is pretty much impossible to find basic axioms, that can be rigorously demonstrated.
(Much of this discussion involves what thinking is.)

Soft Foundationalism: This is a relaxed form of foundationalism, that accepts that
basic axioms may not be able to be rigorously proven. But, that there are basic
axioms that are self-evidently true. [Epistemology, Wood, 85-]

Note that in these models, material implication (deductive logical causality) "is
the only logical relationship that preserves certainty" [Epistemology, Wood, 87]
---------- ----------

Note that these philosophical considerations deal with very basic elements of
human thinking and perceiving. Some Christians do not like to deal with these
basic primitives.

Note that these philosophical schools dealing with truth, deal with a reality that
is super-atomic. As human beings perceive "reality", they do not perceive
reality on the subatomic level. The Bible presents "reality" on the super atomic
level. What the Bible presents as accessible to all people (with regard to our
shared reality), is super atomic. So, it is my opinion that subatomic quantum
theories in physics are not required belief, for being a Christian.

(Not do I think that Christians should read subatomic scientific theories into
the text of the Bible. Just as they should not try to assert that the Bible presents
the modern Periodic table of the Elements.)

The Bible asserts some propositions that it presents as self-intuitive.
One is the concept of the conscience ("moral consciousness"), which is
a revelation from God to each human being, of the knowledge of what is
morally/ethically right, and morally/ethically wrong.

Another assertion in the Bible is that we all can know the existence of God, and
something of his characteristics, from observing the natural world.

Although Christians will accept these 2 biblical assertions as TRUE,
demonstrating the reasonableness of these propositions to non-Christians
is part of Christian apologetics.
---------- ----------

Note that there are Evidentialist models of justifying true propositions.

Note that other philosophers argue that propositions may be evaluated
as true, because of their (the proposition's) relationship with the world.
[Epistemology, Wood, 96]

"... Thomas Reid and others argue that one has knowledge not because
one has additional beliefs about one's knowledge but because the items
of one's knowledge stand in a certain relation to the world."
[Epistemology, Wood, 96]

There are many historic Christians that would accept Thomas Reid's
approach to justifying whether or not a belief is true.
---------- ----------

(Mangling of text, is due to the interface's spell corrector.]

 

[Stephen3141]

So, continuing with the topic of evaluating initial premises,
as to whether or not they are TRUE (they match our shared reality).
---------- ----------

Note that many of the younger generations in America, have not
read enough philosophy to knowledgeably discuss the topic of
how to justify that a personal belief/opinion is TRUE.

These basic considerations of Epistemology, SHOULD be taught in
high school to all students.
---------- ---------

Coherentism: another school of though in justifying opinions, is based
on building coherent systems of beliefs. A belief is "coherent", if it fits
into the system of beliefs that we already accept.

NOTE: That a new belief is coherent with our existing (personal)
system of beliefs, IS NOT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE AN OPTIMALLY
ORDERED COGNITIVE LIFE. [Epistemology, Wood, 119]

....................
EXAMPLE:

1 I believe many of the conspiracy theories that Tucker Carlson promotes.
2 I believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump.
3 Trump, with all his massive economic resources, has not been able to
uncover credible evidence of this "big steal".

4 Encountered new belief/opinion: There is no evidence of significant
fraud in the 2020 election, because there are Deep State forces that
have systematically erased all evidence of the massive election fraud.

Note that the Coherentism approach would say that the proposed new
belief is "coherent" with the former beliefs 1-3. So, why not accept it
as TRUE?
....................

NOTE: A justified belief/opinion can be logically viewed as knowledge.

NOTE: From the time we are children, our personal belief system changes
radically. So, A MODEL OF BELIEF JUSTIFICATION MUST ALSO HAVE A
METHOD TO REVISE OUR CURRENT BELIEF SYSTEM. And this method
should not be arbitrary, and itself not justified.

NOTE: Human beings are able to deceive themselves. We may WANT
some proposition to be true so much, that we are willing to arbitrarily
revise our entire current belief system (even irrationally, and against
evidence), to fit in the new and desired belief.

W.V.O Quine: Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make
drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system."
[Epistemology, Wood, 118]
---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

So, continuing with the topic of evaluating initial premises,
as to whether or not they are TRUE (they match our shared reality).
---------- ----------

People who are reading this thread, are probably asking why Christians
who are trying to explain/defend the christian faith, should find this topic
of justifying personal beliefs to be relevant to their life.

So... some examples.
If your chair has a seat belt on it, put it on.
---------- ----------

Example 1:

1 I believe that the Bible is the word of God
2 I believe that the text of the Bible is intuitively accessible
to all people who read it.
3 So, my answer to all assertions that seem to be contrary to biblical
teaching is "That's wrong. And the Bible says ,such-and-such>".

Analysis of Example 1:

Beliefs that I hold, that should have been submitted to a rigorous process of
justification are...

assertion (1): this involves
a A precise definition what the "Word of God" means.
There are MANY definitions, and many are incompatible with Christianity.
-- If the precise definition of "Word of God" that I hold, does not match the
assertions in the Bible, then my definition is not internally coherent.
-- If I appeal to a definition given by some authority that I accept,
I should have rigorously examined whether that Appeal to Authority is valid.

Assertion (2): this involves

a This is not a position held by ALL Christian groups.
b This is a position held by many anti-intellectual Christian groups.
c If I believe Assertion (2), then I will probably have built a system
of beliefs using the Coherentism model.

But, I may not have examined the historical Christian discussions of how
God communicates to us in the Bible:

I may have never learned anything of the biblical languages:
I may not know how to use world class lexicons to justify MY belief
of what a text in the Bible means:

I may have accepted the validity-trueness of the Bible reference tools
that I do use, but without rigorously justifying the validity of those tools:
The tools that I use (including commentaries), may be base on an
Appeal to authority that is not valid.

I may never have examined the basic question of how all sorts of different
groups, that hold that the meaning of the biblical text is intuitively
accessible to all people, could come up with different and even
contradictory interpretations of the Bible. (This does not match the
coherency model of truth.)

About Assertion (3):

-- Although this answer may be a summary of (what I believe to be)
biblical teaching, it is not an APOLOGETIC to someone who is not
a Christian.
-- Assertion (3) assumes that I am right, in my interpretation of the
Bible. 2 people who disagree on a topic may BOTH appeal to this
Assertion, yet radically disagree on what the Bible says on the topic.

-- Assertion (3), increasingly, is used by people who are biblically
illiterate.

-- Assertion (3) is sometimes used by people, when they are thinking
of denominational slogans (dealing with the topic). Whether these
theological slogans have themselves been rigorously examined/justified
as being true, is another matter.


Regardless of the belief system that I use, in Christian apologetics
we need to explain/defend Christian doctrines to people who may not
hold to the belief system that I accept.
---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

Example 2:

1 I believe the theory of Alex Jones, that the Sandy Hook school
shooting never happened. That is was a Deep State propaganda
presentation.
2 I see parents of the killed students, appearing on news stations and
social media, asserting their pain at the killing of their children.
3 I deny that these (2) presentations are real, because they do not
match (cohere) with my trust of Alex Jones as an authority on what
is TRUE.
4 My belief that there are Deep State conspiracies, to mangle the
presentation of reality on news stations and social media, is
strengthened. Because, I cannot consider the PERSONAL COST of
revising my personal belief system that includes that Alex Jones and
Tucker Carlson have a real bead on truth, and would never be deceived or
lie to their listeners.

Note:

-- If we are unwilling to re-evaluate whether our "basic" beliefs are true
(such as a trust that Alex Jones is reliable and trustworthy, in reporting
what is true, or that Tucker Carlson is reliable and trustworthy in reporting
what is true), then I can get caught in TERRIBLE belief systems that
DO NOT MATCH OUR SHARED REALITY.

-- If I create a "reality cacoon" around myself, by only listening to one news
source, and only considering (as possibly true) a small set of ideas that I
hear regularly in my reality cacoon, THEN it is VERY probable that I will
end up building a belief system that is BADLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH OUR
SHARED REALITY.

-- If my method of justifying a belief as true, is flawed, THEN my belief
system is likely to include opinions that are merely popular, or merely
frequently repeated by the media, or are incompatible with Christianity,
or are really bad misunderstandings of good written histories, or are
incompatible with orthodox Christian commentators and teachers of
the first 5 centuries.

-- Those who constantly put out theories, often appeal to the emotions and
damaged lives of their audience. They want their audience to replace
reason with emotions, and historical knowledge with rage. This is a common
approach of the worldwide terrorist groups. And increasingly, it is a method
of gaining adherents to American conspiracy theories.

-- Note that the promoters of conspiracy theories are heavily dependent on
the Coherency model of justifying a belief. That is, they tell stories that are
COHERENT with a conclusion that they are promoting. They may explain
how one theory is supported by another theory. But in a Christian worldview,
most of these supporting theories are still in the category of GOSSIP, and do
not meet rigorous justification tests.

 

[Stephen3141]

Example 3: Confusing Proof-Texting with Justifying Initial Beliefs

My definition of "proof-texting" is quoting a single text in the Bible,
and taking it to be a complete definition of a biblical concept.

Note that if we quote Romans 3.23, and assert that all human beings have
sinned, we are in error. Because the man Jesus, was human, yet he did
not sin. This sort of trying to produce a global rule, out of one text of
Scripture, is an example of proof texting.
---------- ----------

"
1 “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3.23
2 “Christ was a man like us, except without sin.” Hebrews 4.15

Here we have what looks like a global rule (no exceptions). Except that the Scripture also states that the man Christ Jesus never sinned. This is an exception to that global rule.

If we put this into formal logic code, we could say…

H: is a human being
c: is Christ
S: has sinned

The 2 propositions go into logic like this:

(all x) (Hx —> Sx) for all individuals, if x is human, then x has sinned
~Sc Christ did not sin

We can combine these in a universally quantified rule:

3 (all x) [ (Hx AND ~(x==c) —> Sx] for all x, if x is human and x is not Christ,
then x has sinned

By encoding exceptions right into rules, the rules can be instantiated so that x is changed to any other specific individual, and the instantiation rule will be valid, and preserve the fact that there is an exception to the rule." [(c) Stephen Wuest, November 7th, 2023]

 

[partinobodycular]

By encoding exceptions right into rules, the rules can be instantiated so that x is changed to any other specific individual, and the instantiation rule will be valid, and preserve the fact that there is an exception to the rule." [(c) Stephen Wuest, November 7th, 2023]

But doesn't this simply make your 'formal logic' useless?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But doesn't this simply make your 'formal logic' useless?

It certainly raises the question of when you can or can't entertain the idea of exceptions to what are usually universal statements, but I don't think it makes it useless.

All nonChrist humans sin.

All non-monotreme mammals bear live young.

If taken as axiomatically true, these propositions can be used as well as any other, as far as I can tell.

 

[partinobodycular]

It certainly raises the question of when you can or can't entertain the idea of exceptions to what are usually universal statements, but I don't think it makes it useless.

I hate to disagree and I certainly lack the intellectual training to do so, but what's to stop me from saying that 'All non-partinobodycular humans sin'? To me, that simply isn't an acceptable form of logic. You'll have to find another way of stating it, or remove the 'all humans sin' premise altogether, because it obviously isn't true.

To me premises are either true or they're not, adding exceptions is simply admitting by default that the premises are wrong.

Where am I mistaken?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I hate to disagree and I certainly lack the intellectual training to do so, but what's to stop me from saying that 'All non-partinobodycular humans sin'?

I certainly can't stop you. But neither am I inclined to accept that premise.

The OP proposes that he's working up to justifying the truth of premises. Reasons why your conversational partner should accept your premises.

But I agree with you that adding exceptions smacks of special pleading.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.

But if the exception can be justified, that would remove this objection. The platypus really is a mammal, and/but it really does lay eggs rather than give birth to live young.

 

[partinobodycular]

But if the exception can be justified, that would remove this objection. The platypus really is a mammal, and/but it really does lay eggs rather than give birth to live young.

Or have we simply lumped the platypus in with the mammals out of convenience, disregarding the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria. A reasonable thing to do from a biological standpoint I suppose, but viewing it from a 'formal logic' standpoint isn't it actually incorrect? The platypus doesn't meet the criteria for being classified as a mammal. And saying that it can be justified smacks of a subjective opinion to me. I would assume that formal logic would detest such things as subjective opinions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Or have we simply lumped the platypus in with the mammals out of convenience, disregarding the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria.

It does meet the criteria. Platypuses have mammaries, making them mammals. But they are not placental mammals (and neither are the marsupials).

I think these things are not so much about logic as definitions, which we are free to make (though again it is good to have consensus about what words mean).

Jesus was a man, but (we are told) he was a man with a sinless nature, unlike the other men who have a sinful nature. Having a sinful nature is like having a placenta, some men have them and some (well one or two) don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I propose a thread that will discuss ways to "justify" (the philosophical term)
that the initial premises used in an argument, are TRUE.

I propose this subject, because ...

1 Most of what I would call errors in arguments used by Christian
involve differences in basic definitions (premises).

2 The way in which we try to justify our initial premises, often
include appeals to authorities. What authorities we are appealing
to, is often left out of the arguments.

3 The anti-intellectual Christian traditions appeal to VERY different methods
of identifying authorities, than the Christian groups that are assuming that
formal reasoning methods are part of our shared reality (and so should be
used in Christian apologetics.

4 In Christian apologetics, we should try to explain WHY Christians hold
certain premises, in their arguments. This is part of explaining the
Christian faith.


I think that this topic would be VERY interesting, and reveal VERY different
approaches to dealing with the topic of truth, among different Christian
groups.

And if we find that we do indeed have very different epistemic approaches to both the concept(S) of Truth and Reality, then what?

 

[partinobodycular]

I think these things are not so much about logic as definitions, which we are free to make (though again it is good to have consensus about what words mean).

Now this I agree with, sometimes hard and fast rules just aren't quite up to the job.

 

[Stephen3141]

I hate to disagree and I certainly lack the intellectual training to do so, but what's to stop me from saying that 'All non-partinobodycular humans sin'? To me, that simply isn't an acceptable form of logic. You'll have to find another way of stating it, or remove the 'all humans sin' premise altogether, because it obviously isn't true.

To me premises are either true or they're not, adding exceptions is simply admitting by default that the premises are wrong.

Where am I mistaken?

A rule with embedded exceptions, is a rule.
It's not (by some definition) a faulty rule.

It's the difference between saying
"Every human being is not ME."
and
"Every human being without my unique definition of personhood, is not me."

The first is a flawed rule.
The second rule, that includes 1 exception, is a True rule.

 

[Stephen3141]

And if we find that we do indeed have very different epistemic approaches to both the concept(S) of Truth and Reality, then what?

Then, we have accomplished SOMETHING.

We have identified a possible source (a methodology) that makes us
come to different Conclusions.

This is important, in Christian Apologetics, in which some discussions
never identify why 2 people are coming to different Conclusions.

THEN, we can argue the reasons why we hold to the method of justifying
what is True. And this, is making progress.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now this I agree with, sometimes hard and fast rules just aren't quite up to the job.

(A rule with a precise exception, is still "hard and fast"rule.

Rules in formal logic express a type of relationship (logical causality, material implication)
which is very precisely defined, and MUST see rigorous requirements, to properly be
asserted as a "rule".

Christians need to make a distinction between asserting that some theological
concept is governed by hard and fast definitions, and realizing that, in some
cases, we CANNOT assert the outcome of a situation in hard and fast ways.

Example:

1 God has mercy, on who he will have mercy. (This is a hard and fast Christian definition)
2 We cannot precisely predict ALL upon whom God will have mercy. (This is a hard and fast rule)
3 Because of (1), God will have mercy on ME. (This is an unsound assertion -- a false rule)