Is logic logical?

[bibleblevr]

Using logic in arguments is not logical, because butterflies are flammable!

disprove me!................ But before you do, remember that trying to prove that logic is logical using logic is a circular argument, because the premise you are using to prove that logic is logical, rests on a forgone, and as of yet, unproven premise.

But I apologize that I used logic above, let me restate my above paragraph in a way that is not a circular argument by interjecting extra words, ad phrases to make it illogical, and thus admissible in this discussion.

disprove me!.......A pints a pound the would around......... But before you do Luke sky-walker, remember fish and chips that trying to prove that logic magic is logical using logic nuclear beavers is a circular pyramid argument and it's out out of the park!, because the premise with fresh sheets every time you go underwater you are using to prove I love you that logic is logical, rests on a forgone, scratch a little to the left and as of butter has a lower smoke point then the Japanese yet, unproven premise. bananas!!!!


let the discussion begin !!!

 

[DaisyDay]

Logic is logical by definition. A = A.

Whether you should use it or not depends what you're arguing. For instance, when you don't have facts or evidence, or when the facts and evidence are against your position, then you should probably go with the emotional argument and use false logic and hope you don't get caught.

 

[brinny]

Logic is logical by definition. A = A.

Whether you should use it or not depends what you're arguing. For instance, when you don't have facts or evidence, or when the facts and evidence are against your position, then you should probably go with the emotional argument and use false logic and hope you don't get caught.

LOL! what?

Did you read the entire opening post?

 

[bibleblevr]

Logic is logical by definition. A = A.

A = A seems like logic to me, and since you are trying to prove logic with logic, you have a circular argument my friend

If however, you are proving logic is logical using a definition, you are making a circular argument for a variety of reasons. First using the definition is a logical step voiding your argument, second, applying the definition to prove your point requires logic, voiding your argument, and finally the process of creating a definition requires the formula A=A and you used A=A to prove logic = logic which is a definition and that voids your argument

 

[brinny]

A = A seems like logic to me, and since you are trying to prove logic with logic, you have a circular argument my friend

If however, you are proving logic is logical using a definition, you are making a circular argument for a variety of reasons. First using the definition is a logical step voiding your argument, second, applying the definition to prove your point requires logic, voiding your argument, and finally the process of creating a definition requires the formula A=A and you used A=A to prove logic = logic which is a definition and that voids your argument

LOL

 

[Chesterton]

let the discussion begin !!!

Nuclear beavers?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Logic is logical because starfish.

 

[brinny]

Logic is logical because starfish.

If you would be so kind as to please expound, sir.

 

[bibleblevr]

Logic is logical because starfish.

I bow to your superior intellect But, I must ask, if logic is now proven, (thanks to your ingenious starfish proof), then logic would dictate that my circular argument proof is also correct, since it is based on logic:

If logic is used to prove logic, then the argument is circular due to the initial premise resting on the conclusion of the line of logic.

The solution must be that logic is both logical and illogical. Does this conclusion sound illogical to you? Yes! Good

 

[DaisyDay]

LOL! what?

Did you read the entire opening post?

Yes, I did. One of the first principles of logic is identity, ie. A = A

I think you have to understand logic before you can discuss it intelligently. Of course, you can always discuss it unintelligently, nothing stopping you there...

A = A seems like logic to me, and since you are trying to prove logic with logic, you have a circular argument my friend

If however, you are proving logic is logical using a definition, you are making a circular argument for a variety of reasons. First using the definition is a logical step voiding your argument, second, applying the definition to prove your point requires logic, voiding your argument, and finally the process of creating a definition requires the formula A=A and you used A=A to prove logic = logic which is a definition and that voids your argument

A definition is not a circular argument, it is a definition.

I think for you, Sith's argument should suffice: Logic is logical because starfish.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If you would be so kind as to please expound, sir.

Sure.

We have to stay outside the realms of logic in order for a proof that is not based on logic to be found. However, this being a logical viewpoint as well means that all reasoning to do with logic is circular. The reason this is a problem? We're looking at the wrong subject. There are two main key words to be pulled from this issue - logic and circular. Now we've already established that we cannot avoid logic, but we can avoid circular by not using circular things. What is not circular? Starfish.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes, I did. One of the first principles of logic is identity, ie. A = A

I think you have to understand logic before you can discuss it intelligently. Of course, you can always discuss it unintelligently, nothing stopping you there...

A definition is not a circular argument, it is a definition.

I think for you, Sith's argument should suffice: Logic is logical because starfish.

Psst. This isn't a serious thread. Probably.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I bow to your superior intellect But, I must ask, if logic is now proven, (thanks to your ingenious starfish proof), then logic would dictate that my circular argument proof is also correct, since it is based on logic:

If logic is used to prove logic, then the argument is circular due to the initial premise resting on the conclusion of the line of logic.

The solution must be that logic is both logical and illogical. Does this conclusion sound illogical to you? Yes! Good

You can use the effects of something as evidence for the nature of the thing itself. Using logic means that logic is logical because the logic makes the logical logic which can then be logically traced back to the logical source is a logical manner, logically meaning that the logical cause must be logic. And starfish.

So therefore (trying to avoid logic as much as possible) logic is three things: logical, illogical and starfish.

 

[DaisyDay]

Psst. This isn't a serious thread. Probably.

Yeah, that's why I support your starfish argument.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by SithDoughnut
Psst. This isn't a serious thread. Probably.

Yeah, that's why I support your starfish argument.

LOL

 

[Eudaimonist]

Using logic in arguments is not logical, because butterflies are flammable!

disprove me!................ But before you do, remember that trying to prove that logic is logical using logic is a circular argument, because the premise you are using to prove that logic is logical, rests on a forgone, and as of yet, unproven premise.

The correctness of logic is established through life experience, not logic.

When I was maybe 3 or 4 years old, and I was told that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" (the Law of Non-Contradiction), I did not set about proving this basic logical principle true with logic. I appealed to my experience of life. When I eat a cake, I no longer have it. This is always the case, and can't even be imagined to not be the case, unless one imagines a different universe (one where time works differently, perhaps). Thus was the Law of Non-Contradiction, the basis for all logic, established for me.

Once this was established, other logical principles followed more easily.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DaisyDay]

When I was maybe 3 or 4 years old, and I was told that"you can't have your cake and eat it too" (the Law of Noncontradiction), I did not set about proving this basic logical principle true with logic. I appealed to my experience of life. When I eat a cake, I no longer have it.

But you have to have your cake in order to eat it. That saying ought to be reversed to make sense; it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too".

 

[Eudaimonist]

But you have to have your cake in order to eat it. That saying ought to be reversed to make sense; it should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too".

Yeah, it may be poorly worded, but I understood what was intended.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MacFall]

Existence exists. People act. A coherent statement requires thought beforehand. These statements are logical, and cannot be disproven because in the very act of trying to disprove them, you carry them out. You cannot say "logic is illogical" without existing, acting, and thinking - actions which prove the logical statements I just made. So yes, logic IS logical. It is something which must be assumed before any argument can be constructed, just as the nature of quantity must be assumed before a mathematical statement can be made.

Also, halibut.

 

[quatona]

A = A seems like logic to me, and since you are trying to prove logic with logic, you have a circular argument my friend

If however, you are proving logic is logical using a definition, you are making a circular argument for a variety of reasons. First using the definition is a logical step voiding your argument, second, applying the definition to prove your point requires logic, voiding your argument, and finally the process of creating a definition requires the formula A=A and you used A=A to prove logic = logic which is a definition and that voids your argument

This entire post with all the "since" and "circular argument" and "voids your argument" and all looks suspiciously like an attempt to argue logically. For some reason you seem to value logic, and for some reason you find logic a suitable means of demonstrating that logic is illogical.
If you don´t accept logic as a valid basis for proving logic to be logical, I don´t see any reason to accept logic as a valid basis for tackling this claim.

I think this thread needs some rules: Are we and you supposed to be logical in our arguments, or is nonsense just as good or even your preferred approach?