Beyond Logical Steps?

Is their something more than logic?

Beyond facts and the reasoning of logic, to me it seems logic is just trying to understand something without actually being able to accept other possibilities as truth.
It seems as another way to categories something, into true and false, when still something called false maybe the true answer. If you take results down for something and you find a result that has nothing to do with the other data it is called an anomaly and means that
LIke an anamoly maybe false in logic but in truth it could be the answer.

In words it is hard to explain, (especially me, someone who has never been good at explaining their point) but I still want to know others opinions.
Is it possible there is something superior to logic?

 

There's nothing above logic, because logic is really the ultimate way to find the answer to any question. Anomalies are simply just things that a person wouldn't logically think of, it doesn't mean they're logically false or logically true, it means they're logically unthought of.

Logic is actually based on a pattern of anomalies, when you think about it, so whatever you think is "superior" to logic is really only the true way of things, which we're constatnly trying to figure out by changing our logic to include the possibility of anomaly. There's nothing that's completely impossible to figure out using logic, because logic is a flexible weapon that adapts and changes and grows stonger based on trial and error.

 

This whole argument is null and void on the premises that truth, right, wrong, are all perceptions of human intellect, and are therefore not valid in attempting to uncover anything past logic or 'truth'. It is perceived different by -every- -single- person alive on this Earth, and it will always stay that way. What you think is what you think, what someone else thinks is what they think. Use logic all you want, but logic is always different from person to person. Take a sociopath for instance; what they do by all means is wrong according to society, but according to themselves, nothing they're doing is wrong in their minds. 'Truth' is just a loosely constructed belief that abides by what is morally and ethically accepted according to society and others around us. Logic as well.

 

I think he meant something that is a universal truth no matter what. Like freezing for instance.

All substances on earth freeze and compact, except water. Logic would say that water too, would get smaller and more dense. But it doesn't, quite the opposite, it expands. Water would be considered an anamoly. This is a truth that is beyond logic, yet no matter what, it is a truth, from every point of view.

Hence, I don't thinkt hat perspectivism applies to this thread. Your post is null and void. D:

 

He never actually stated what he was specifically referring to, so we both might be wrong. But I see your point.

 

Again with another metaphysical question! =:)

Logic is human rationalizing (or animals can logic out things to a degree as well) and we have our degrees of being able to examine things and make decisions. I do not think anything out there is necessarily beyond logic but at the same time, we have not been able to explain 'everything' either. Logic and examination go hand in hand and though things may seem out of reach currently, it does not mean that later it cannot be understood. However, human perception is what is limited so the only way we can understand some things is to invent stuff to actually let us examine it from beyond what we normally can gather with our senses. I'm totally comfortable that if I do not know an answer to something to leave it as a "?" instead of filling in the blanks with something else that may be accurate or way off kilter. An 'anomaly' is simply something not able to be answered at this time. In time the connection may be established and a former query may be answered. Other thoughts may have to be altered to accept the anomaly in.

This is why in science 'Theories' do not equate to people having 'theories' in life. Hypothesis is a better word to fit how people commonly use the word 'theory'. It's tossing ideas out there with limited available proof where as a Theory in science does have some actual validity. They are called Theories though instead of Laws so that they can be amended if need be due to 'anomalies' that may come up. Researchers know and leave room for debate on things. If you say you absolutely know something for fact, you close your mind to research of the topic at that point. Then, logic can fail you.

If you would, could you highlight some examples as to what you mean since it seems we all may be confused on what exactly you are asking? Truths and falsehoods can change under circumstances. I'm not sure what you are exactly inquiring about here.

 

I think you may be misunderstanding the intentions of the use of logic. There isn't simply one truth that we reach and then upon which we simply move toward the next problem. Truth has fluidity; we are always adding to it, and we are always postulating new reasoning. It's use is for simply arriving at the most able conclusion with the valid premises within our reach.

 

i'm not entirely sure of what you're saying. if you're saying if there is some other way to think about a problem i would say maybe? like maybe intuition or premonitions? i dunno, i not sure what you're saying

 

Well intuitions and premonitions are highly subjective and prone to confounds and fallacy.

 

i guess, they could also be a result of some sort of internal logic which makes it not really above logic but a combination of logic and feelings? i not sure

 

Intuition, or gut feeling still derives from some way of logic too, just what I'd consider more of a subliminal thing at first. It's almost like the idea is in there and it's a snap decision of instinct, which kind of physically is akin to you move your hand away from a hot burner because well...it's going to hurt if you keep your hand there. Sometimes it's reliable, sometimes no.

 

Ahhh, so many scientifical jargon speaking words! XD
I never could get comfortable with it, no wonder I butt heads with so many of my science teachers but oh well let's see...

True that every independent person would think of logic in a different way because of the very word independence (that’s why I said I wanted to know peoples opinions on this topic) but it still if you worked for a furniture company and you had to test, say a production line of chairs to see if there are able to take a certain amount of pressure on it. You have 500 test chairs and you test them all, if your results are 499 of the chairs were able to hold against a certain amount of pressure and 1 wasn't than logic says the chairs are ready to be massed produced. But what if in the end when you sold the chairs only a few of them were able to hold against a certain amount of pressure, does that mean logic was wrong? And taking into consideration that all factors and conditions were the same as when the chairs were tested. What does this say about logic?

No, no, it's a worthy opinion; any opinion is worthy as long as it is your opinion.

And whether the topic is about the independent or the universal that is hard to narrow down as both affect the other. But I would say the universal. It is harder to explain by typing it down for some reason compared to speaking it out, so I will try and make my point as clear as possible, so please keep asking if I am not making it clear enough.

 

well,thats not logic , i think its both logic and probability.....but i understand what it is you are trying to point out, something that surpases the universal logic............ummmm........occult arts?
or faith?


lets see , people that believe in a higher power are sometimes witnesses to miracles?

thats something beyond logic......(depending of course of how amazing it is)

occult arts are a territory,that is unknown to most people ,its probably something you dont wanna mess with......

but,occults arts perhaps could be explained if researched correctly.........i think?

people everyday surpass logic in ways that no one could think possible(because of our belief system)

but once done,they become logical, so ,is there an end that logic can't reach?


everything proved by a hypothesis becomes logical

perhaps something a hypothesis cant prove isnt logical,and its "beyond logical steps"?

 

Well hypotheses in turn test and restructure our logic. Philosophy and science come together when we move away from abstract arguments involving valid premises and into the empirically/ physically defined realm, thus assessing the logical truth, testing it and seeing it's actual susceptibility to fallacy.

Faith can certainly be understood as a point of view, but it makes too many assumptions to be considered a much more valid and superior alternative to logic. Faith simply has it's "haves and have nots" regardless of whether or not they are valid or even true. Theres nothing wrong with faith per se, but since it is within an different realm of approach the best it will only ever do is contest. Furthermore, where faith is rigid (i.e. there is no accommodation for even the possibility that a higher power might not exist), logic allows for accommodation. In the case of religion again, should we ever come to witness some form of a higher power, logic can restructure itself to allow a valid premise concerning that higher power.

Well certainty can be argued in terms of probability involving inferences from a sample (A small group of the population) to a population (the entire body of data you wish to study), but in the example that you have given we know and essentially test the entire population. If we find that those 499 chairs are able to withstand a certain amount of pressure/weight then they are able to do so. If you take one chair and place 50 pounds on it and it remains stable that stability will not be changed. Conversely, it would be the same if you placed a heavy enough weight to make the chair break. Even if you were to refer to the chairs produced in two completely different factories each chair is designed from the same blueprint, which is in turn designed with the intention to withstand a specific amount of weight. If we have tested 500 chairs in each factory, we have enough justified belief that the next 500 chairs will be of the exact same criteria, and so forth.

 

It's always possible that the outcome of anything will be different, regardless of blueprint or prior testing. In the chair instance, there can -always- be human or machine error. Nothing is ever done perfect. The wood will always be different, as well. There are a number of factors that could contribute to 1 chair breaking while 499 remain stable. That is not an anomaly, nor is it something that can't be logically explained. The wood was weaker than the rest, the chair was produced improperly, damaged, or the weight was placed wrong/differently than the rest.

 

That is why I said in my last post 'And taking into consideration that all factors and conditions were the same as when the chairs were tested.' meaning that no other fault occurred all the chairs were made in the same place with the same wood and same design, the machines were in the same condition as they were when the tested chairs were produced and stayed that way the whole time.
And if you would ask whether this is even possible, than I can understand, but I did read once in a scientific magazine a while ago that the exact same thing happened, a line of chairs were tested and seemed suitable for mass production but when the first load of chairs were sold around one or two days later many complaints came in that the chairs were broken even under their specified weight. The company stopped production and apparently the company got a call from a group of scientists that would have liked to come in and test how it could have happened. When the scientists were finished with very specific tests and probabilities they found no difference between the production of the test chairs and the first shipment of chairs and were unable to come up with any ideas on how it happened. I'm sorry I can't find a specific source from where this came from so I can understand if some people wouldn't believe this.

But from this article this and some recent events gave me the question of 'Is logic the true way of how to analyse something and to learn from?'
It still seems hard to believe that any way of thinking is a true or perfect way, and I think the same can be said for logic, it's not always right and you could use something else to find an answer or truth. The real question is whether people are ready to accept it. But I guess that would have to be tested.

 

That's all fine, except I don't really believe you. Nothing is EVER made the exact same, no matter how much you try. Setting a 500 pound weight onto a chair and it not breaking is NOT proper testing for a possibility that even a 300 pound man might sit down rather hard on the chair and it will break apart. There are so many factors that could come into play with this. The wood could have cracked when a screw was drilled into it, and then the rest of the chairs were completely fine. The climate the chair was in could effect the overall composure of the chair. If it's too cold out, the chair could break easier, etc. It still doesn't justify anything. There IS an explanation for everything that happens, and whether we find out about it or not, it's still there.

 

There may as well be something. Cuz if there really is, then it is the mother of all. Or the father, however you want to make it. But then if we were to find out about it then we would use it, and then it would get us. That just sounds devastating. Kind of like, how everyone tries to decipher what will happen if and when aliens will ever to come to earth or not.​

 

...what? XD

 

i think i understand , kinda,

lets do a better example:

what ,if, somehow people found out ,that God, was,only a power source that sustained the world ,

if humans got to using that ,there would always be someone who would ruin the world, with such power