Question

[variant]

How would that work in this case?

Is there a distinction between using logic to reach/describe truths and logic having utility?

 

[Gottservant]

Is there a distinction between using logic to reach/describe truths and logic having utility?

Perhaps a tangential one.

You would have to show the logic anticipated its utility in the definition of it, I suppose.

Not easy, except by faith (which is the point).

 

[variant]

Perhaps a tangential one.

You would have to show the logic anticipated its utility in the definition of it, I suppose.

Not easy, except by faith (which is the point).

Logic isn't in and of itself sentient.

I was asking that question of Recieved as a part of our conversation though, I don't think I can communicate properly enough with you to have a proper philosophical discussion.

 

[Received]

Is there a distinction between using logic to reach/describe truths and logic having utility?

Yeah, because they're different. Truth can be intrinsically valuable or extrinsically valuable; if it's the former than this means it's valued even if it doesn't "work for you," e.g., you get in trouble, people don't like you, you get killed, etc. for telling the truth. If it's the latter, then truth can be valued insofar as it works.

 

[variant]

Yeah, because they're different. Truth can be intrinsically valuable or extrinsically valuable; if it's the former than this means it's valued even if it doesn't "work for you," e.g., you get in trouble, people don't like you, you get killed, etc. for telling the truth. If it's the latter, then truth can be valued insofar as it works.

In my opinion how we tell if something is truth is the utility of that idea or concept of yielding accurate results and describing the world as it is.

So, when I say that utility justifys logic, it means that logic is a viable tool for describing the world as it is when used. It yeilds correct results when used.

No further justification is necessary.

 

[Received]

In my opinion how we tell if something is truth is the utility of that idea or concept of yielding accurate results and describing the world as it is.

So, when I say that utility justifys logic, it means that logic is a viable tool for describing the world as it is when used. It yeilds correct results when used.

No further justification is necessary.

Accurate results? Are you holding scientism?

 

[variant]

Accurate results? Are you holding scientism?

Accuracy is a concept that most people understand.

 

[Received]

You say this:

In my opinion how we tell if something is truth is the utility of that idea or concept of yielding accurate results and describing the world as it is.

I say this (using your language, with excluded parts in brackets):

In my opinion how we tell if something is true is [the utility of that idea or concept of yielding accurate results and] if it describes the world as it is.

Why do you need to go further than truth being representing the world as it is?

 

[variant]

Why do you need to go further than truth being representing the world as it is?

Because it is easier to justify logic my way.

 

[Received]

Because it is easier to justify logic my way.

I took out half your sentence while maintaining a consistent definition of truth. If that doesn't mean it's easier as a justification, I don't know what easier means.

 

[variant]

I took out half your sentence while maintaining a consistent definition of truth. If that doesn't mean it's easier as a justification, I don't know what easier means.

My point is that we basically agree on what truth is and what utility is, the addition of utility makes it so we can justify logic without the self reference problems of trying to logically justify logic.

We can simply observe the use of logic verses the use of not logic and see which one is desirable for yielding truth.

So:

Yes.

What's the logical justification (i.e., evidence) for logic? Wait a minute.
​

​

An observation of the lack of utility of not logic.

 

[Received]

My point is that we basically agree on what truth is and what utility is, the addition of utility makes it so we can justify logic without the self reference problems of trying to logically justify logic.

We can simply observe the use of logic verses the use of not logic and see which one is desirable for yielding truth.

So:

So you're saying that truth and utility are distinct things, but that they often work together?

 

[variant]

So you're saying that truth and utility are distinct things, but that they often work together?

I am saying that utility is how we relate to truth on a basic level.

More so though, I am saying that you can use an observation of utility in the process determining truth as a justification.

This effectively solves self referential issues like the one you were putting forward.

 

[Received]

I am saying that utility is how we relate to truth on a basic level.

But implicit in this idea is the distinction between utility and truth. So there is a distinction or not?

And of course we use truth.

 

[variant]

But implicit in this idea is the distinction between utility and truth. So there is a distinction or not?

And of course we use truth.

I think that distinction comes from a different context.

I don't think logic lies I think people do.

 

[Received]

I think that distinction comes from a different context.

I don't think logic lies I think people do.

No, I think the distinction is just there. Truth (representation of reality as it is) is one thing, utility is another. And as you say, truth and utility go together, but (as I say) they far from always go together. They're not intrinsically related. You can use truth, but you can also use falsity; and usefulness can involve truth, but also falsity. If they're not intrinsically related, then they're intrinsically distinct. If they're distinct, this takes us back to posts 11, 12, and 13.

 

[variant]

No, I think the distinction is just there. Truth (representation of reality as it is) is one thing, utility is another. And as you say, truth and utility go together, but (as I say) they far from always go together. They're not intrinsically related. You can use truth, but you can also use falsity; and usefulness can involve truth, but also falsity. If they're not intrinsically related, then they're intrinsically distinct. If they're distinct, this takes us back to posts 11, 12, and 13.

On the level of "is logic justified" in the context of a tool for approaching truth, you can not utilize falsity, so I disagree.

Please demonstrate such an assertion if you so desire.

 

[Received]

On the level of "is logic justified" in the context of a tool for approaching truth, you can not utilize falsity, so I disagree.

Please demonstrate such an assertion if you so desire.

You're saying you can't utilize logic with something that isn't true?

 

[variant]

You're saying you can't utilize logic with something that isn't true?

I'm saying that logic is justified by it's inherent utility for approaching truth in a way that the not using logic can not be.

Similarly to how I would justify travel as a way of getting from one place to another even with the possibility of getting lost.

Does the ability to get lost negate my need to travel to change positions?

 

[Received]

I'm saying that logic is justified by it's inherent utility for approaching truth in a way that the not using logic can not be.

Similarly to how I would justify travel as a way of getting from one place to another even with the possibility of getting lost.

Logic, as a means for unveiling truth, is justified because it works?