Is it possible to prove logic without using logic?

[ObamaChristian]

How does one prove logic without using logic?

If logic, can only be proved by logic, isn't logic circular?

Sense and reason; is something that only applies to the sensible and the rational.

Just thinking back on some Decarte break down of truths.
Really nothing can be proven. Not our existence, not even "I think therefore I am"

Because things could be

ehakhfkaefhkahfbckdhfekaqfheiquafhakfadfkaekuhfaefgaekhbfakfafhakefhakefhkeahfahfg.

Why can't 1+1= rakfheakhfakhczkchaduiefhak
or udahfaekfakzzz = fharkfekazz
why can't we have a circular square? ehkafheajkfhzk

Can you explain why we can't have a circular square to me, without using logic to convince me it's illogical? Logic itself has a assumptive premise.

 

[quatona]

How does one prove logic without using logic?

I don´t even know what "proving logic" is supposed to mean. Looks like word salad to me.

If logic, can only be proved by logic, isn't logic circular?

I notice that you are utilizing and appealing to logic in your question.
Do you expect an answer that is logically sound, or would you be content with an illogical answer?

The word you are looking for is "axiomatic", not "circular".

Can you explain why we can't have a circular square to me, without using logic to convince me it's illogical?

Sure: We can´t have circular squares because green.

Logic itself has a assumptive premise.

Logic is based on axioms.
If, for purposes of this discussion, you would be willing to free me from the boundaries that logic imposes on my statements, fine: that would make things a lot easier for me. Talking nonsense can be a lot of fun, for a while.

 

[abdAlSalam]

Logic is a system of inquiry that uses rigorous processes to arrive at conclusions from starting principles. You can no more "prove" logic through logic than you can "prove" science through science.

 

[Gladius]

What is it that you are trying to 'prove' about logic?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is it that you are trying to 'prove' about logic?

Apparently trying to prove logic exists.

 

[Tinker Grey]

P1: If a method works, we should use it.
P2: Logic is a method that works.
C: We should use logic.

 

[Gladius]

P1: If a method works, we should use it.
P2: Logic is a method that works.
C: We should use logic.

Your P2 is a premise with its own conclusion.

P1 is also merely an opinion.

 

[quatona]

Your P2 is a premise with its own conclusion.

P1 is also merely an opinion.

Well, he wasn´t supposed to use logic, in the first place.

 

[Received]

P1: If a method works, we should use it.
P2: Logic is a method that works.
C: We should use logic.

What works isn't reasonable or logical.

P1: If a method works, we should use it.
P2: Watching Oprah and eating bonbons is a method that works.
C: We should watch Oprah and eat bonbons.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Your P2 is a premise with its own conclusion.

P1 is also merely an opinion.

(First, it was written to be tongue-in-cheek.)

RE P2: Syllogisms can be nested.

Of course, P1 is an opinion. Premises can be challenged. Is it a bad premise?

 

[Tinker Grey]

dp

 

[Tinker Grey]

What works isn't reasonable or logical.

P1: If a method works, we should use it.
P2: Watching Oprah and eating bonbons is a method that works.
C: We should watch Oprah and eat bonbons.

(NOTE: my syllogism was tongue-in-cheek, but let's see where this goes.)

Watching Oprah is a method that works for what?

 

[Received]

For lazy housewives.

(Sorry I have no sense of humor this morning.)

The point is that "what works" is vastly different than "what is true."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Whether that is true or not--and I'm not sure that it is--part of the problem goes to quatona's question: What does it mean to "prove logic"?

For me, logic is a tool/method that allows a consistently good and coherent evaluation of reality.

That enough for me.

 

[Received]

I guess you prove logic like you would prove anything else: point out how it's real or true. I understand logic as that stuff which holds together arguments; not the premises or conclusion per se, but the glue that binds together premises that reach conclusions as a whole. How can we prove something like this? We can't, not in any empirical sense. So we're forced back on axioms or intuitive senses that something is so. The sticking-togetherness of logic is really just another axiom like uniformity in nature, induction, causality, things like that.

 

[Hentenza]

Whether that is true or not--and I'm not sure that it is--part of the problem goes to quatona's question: What does it mean to "prove logic"?

For me, logic is a tool/method that allows a consistently good and coherent evaluation of reality.

That enough for me.

Prepositional or predicate logic can only tell you if an argument is valid. It cannot tell you if an argument is valid and sound.

 

[variant]

How does one prove logic without using logic?

The idea of "proof" or "truth" can only be derived from logic so your question is already assuming logic is true.

If logic, can only be proved by logic, isn't logic circular?

The question of proving logic is like asking us to go about proving proof.

Circular and redundant questions providing us with circular and redundant answers isn't a problem really.

I guess you prove logic like you would prove anything else: point out how it's real or true. I understand logic as that stuff which holds together arguments; not the premises or conclusion per se, but the glue that binds together premises that reach conclusions as a whole. How can we prove something like this? We can't, not in any empirical sense. So we're forced back on axioms or intuitive senses that something is so. The sticking-togetherness of logic is really just another axiom like uniformity in nature, induction, causality, things like that.

You don't have to intuit it, you simply experience it. All basic experiences lead to the conclusion of logic, as logic is a description of experience.

 

[Gladius]

(First, it was written to be tongue-in-cheek.)

RE P2: Syllogisms can be nested.

Of course, P1 is an opinion. Premises can be challenged. Is it a bad premise?

Apologies, you are correct. Not as a defence, but in explanation, the premises were so unsound that I was guilty of the same assumption on their validity.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Logic doesn't have to be proven because everybody uses it. Some people just use it better than others.

 

[quatona]

The point is that "what works" is vastly different than "what is true."

And since the question "Is logic true?" makes as little sense as "Is a hammer true?" we can fully concentrate on the first question - of course not without mentioning the intended purpose in regards to which we ask "Does logic work, and is there even an alternative tool?"