Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
God and Logic by Gordon Clark.
Logic and Truth
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
In general, I agree with you, but I want to correct some of the terms I wasn't using clearly when I used the terms "valid" and "fallacy". Fallacies may be formal or informal, but validity is determined by form alone. An invalid argument is one where the form of the argument itself is at fault. But a fallacious argument maybe formally correct (valid).
But I agree that the conclusion of an invalid argument is not necessarily false. Only that the true/false state of the conclusion is indeterminate. The validity of an argument is not directly related to the truth of the premises or the conclusion. One can take two false premises and validly deduce a true conclusion.
Example:
All Germans enjoy online chess play.
I am citizen of Germany.
Therefore, I enjoy playing chess online.
This is a valid argument, with false premises and a true conclusion. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The argument is fallacious, but it is still valid. So the validity of an argument is a question of form.
A fallacious argument does not mean the conclusion is false either. But the error in the argument may or may not be due to form. It may also be due to unjustified premises, or due to circularity.
We don't need to know everything to prove a proposition is true. If was agree that the Scriptures are God's truth revealed, then we have a foundation determining additional true propositions. We do not follow an infinite regress to prove each premise. In fact, we can only go back as far as our first principles, the axioms of our world view - and for the Christian, that is God's Word.
Agreed. When propositions come from God, and not from a fallen being, then we know truth - the things God gives us to know in His Word - "we have the mind of Christ".
And what we can know is the facts and truths that are the propositions of Scripture. We don't need unlimited knowledge, just a starting point, an axiom, a foundation for truth - which is propositional.
But the unregenerate man can believe these same truths also. The propositions "David was a King of Israel" is true, and can be understood and assented to by regenerate and unregenerate alike. It is the same truth for both. The difference is not in the quality of the proposition, but that only the regenerate can justify this belief as knowledge. For the unregenerate man, it is merely opinion.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I would disagree with the last thought, that the foundation for truth is propositional. It must be the other way around, that truth is the foundation for propositions. Propositions must be about truth, not prior to truth. Propositions can be either true or false. I would agree that the propositions of God's Word are the foundation for our propositions about truth. But I would argue that God's truth existed prior to the propositions of His Word. To reduce God's Word to propositions alone is not to confess the Living Word, which is Christ, who is not a proposition but very God of very God. It also denies the various literary means used to convey His truth to us beyond mere proposition, so that we may understand.
Even Shakespeare teaches us that some things are better conveyed to us through use of literary connotation rather than propositional definition. That is why we have poems and allegories, to convey things very simply that would require many more words in mere propositional form. And the Bible makes use of such means. That is, truth is conveyed to us in ways that are not merely propositional. They can be reduced to proposition, which the Church has done in her doctrinal documentation, but they are conveyed to us originally in various ways so that we may understand.
Theogenes
Puritan Board Junior
Truth is what God thinks, some of which He has revealed to us in the Scriptures. Logic is reasoning by good and necessary consequence to all of the implications and applications of Scriptural propositions. That by the way is a sound hermeneutic. We don't reason to the Truth but rather from it.
Jim
Jim
Henry from Canada
Puritan Board Freshman
The Truth is the Truth. It is only known in total by God. It never changes.
Logic is owned by man. It is used by man to manipulate, twist and distort the Truth. It changes to meet man's everchanging requirements.
Example:
----------
Marge Simpson:
"I believed you. But you lied."
Homer Simpson:
"Now, now, Marge. It takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie. The second person to believe the lie."
Explanation:
---------------
Marge possessed the Truth.
Homer used human logic to twist the Truth so that he could incriminate Marge and spread the blame.
The Bible is the Truth.
Professing Christians throughout the ages have used human logic to twist the Truth to meet their own needs.
For more details, please send me $10 and with that seed gift God will bless you 1,000 times over and prosper you with cars, houses, etc.
Oh, what am I saying? Send me $100, for 10,000 times the blessing. This is in your best interests, not mine.
This is a lame Canadian attempt at humour.
Logic is owned by man. It is used by man to manipulate, twist and distort the Truth. It changes to meet man's everchanging requirements.
Example:
----------
Marge Simpson:
"I believed you. But you lied."
Homer Simpson:
"Now, now, Marge. It takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie. The second person to believe the lie."
Explanation:
---------------
Marge possessed the Truth.
Homer used human logic to twist the Truth so that he could incriminate Marge and spread the blame.
The Bible is the Truth.
Professing Christians throughout the ages have used human logic to twist the Truth to meet their own needs.
For more details, please send me $10 and with that seed gift God will bless you 1,000 times over and prosper you with cars, houses, etc.
Oh, what am I saying? Send me $100, for 10,000 times the blessing. This is in your best interests, not mine.
This is a lame Canadian attempt at humour.
- Without "human" logic, you would not be able to read your bible
- Without "human" logic, you could not know "Jesus died to save sinners".
- Without "human logic", you could not make an argument against logic.
Men may "rationalize" all sorts of errors and sins, but this is not by using correct logic, it can only be done by committing purposeful errors in logic. God uses logic to communicate knowledge. Without logic, there is no knowledge.
[Edited on 1-30-2006 by Civbert]
Henry from Canada
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry Anthony, I took too many cynical pills today.
You are right in that human logic can be very useful. It is a gift from God.
I regret to say, however, that I have seen too many people use "human logic" to justify sin. In my example, Homer was using logic to alter Truth to meet his needs. Lawyers often use human logic to protect criminals from justice.
You are right in that human logic can be very useful. It is a gift from God.
I regret to say, however, that I have seen too many people use "human logic" to justify sin. In my example, Homer was using logic to alter Truth to meet his needs. Lawyers often use human logic to protect criminals from justice.
Henry from Canada
Puritan Board Freshman
Anthony said:
"Men may "rationalize" all sorts of errors and sins, but this is not by using correct logic, it can only be done by committing purposeful errors in logic. "
This statement is true some of the time. But I do not believe it is always true.
I believe people sometimes unknowingly lie and deceive themselves.
Example:
-----------
There have been studies that have examined why people are obese.
Some of these obese people know exactly why they are too fat. They eat too much and/or do not exercise enough.
Some people have no idea why they are obese. However, when they are forced to record their food intake and exercise activities, they suddenly become shocked to discover how much they actually eat and how little they actually exercise.
These people are not actually lying I think; it is just easy to "forget" about that Coke you had at 2PM......
There is a book called "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" by Daniel Goleman that discusses how humans subconsciously distort logic to feel better about themselves.
Proverbs 16:2
-----------------
"All a man's ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the Lord."
I suspect man sometimes does not use "purposeful" errors of logic. I suspect often that man has sinful motives and logic that seems "innocent."
I hope this is not a debate over semantics.
"Men may "rationalize" all sorts of errors and sins, but this is not by using correct logic, it can only be done by committing purposeful errors in logic. "
This statement is true some of the time. But I do not believe it is always true.
I believe people sometimes unknowingly lie and deceive themselves.
Example:
-----------
There have been studies that have examined why people are obese.
Some of these obese people know exactly why they are too fat. They eat too much and/or do not exercise enough.
Some people have no idea why they are obese. However, when they are forced to record their food intake and exercise activities, they suddenly become shocked to discover how much they actually eat and how little they actually exercise.
These people are not actually lying I think; it is just easy to "forget" about that Coke you had at 2PM......
There is a book called "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" by Daniel Goleman that discusses how humans subconsciously distort logic to feel better about themselves.
Proverbs 16:2
-----------------
"All a man's ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the Lord."
I suspect man sometimes does not use "purposeful" errors of logic. I suspect often that man has sinful motives and logic that seems "innocent."
I hope this is not a debate over semantics.
I understand the feeling. There are many examples of men using their ability to argue and persuade to promote lies and justify sin. I think this most often done by using logical fallacies to intentionally deceive people. When I first started studying logic, I was struck by two things: how frequent logical fallacies are used by "intelligent" people (lawyers, doctors, politicians, theologians), and that logically fallacious arguments are often the most persuasive. I expect some people who use these deceptive augments, know these arguments are fallacious, and use them because they are persuasive - especially against those who have never been exposed to the study of logic.
Logic, sadly, is not a required subject in school. And we see the results in the way our elected officials take advantage of the ignorance.
Henry from Canada
Puritan Board Freshman
Anthony said:
"Zig Ziglar said something like - "I never ate a candy bar by accident".
10 years ago, I worked with an extremely obese person who had 2 candy bars every lunch.
If you were to question her, she might say she was obese because she ate too many candy bars. In this case, she may not be deceiving herself.
Or, she might also say that she is fat because of "glandular" problem or slow metabolism. In this case, she may have "accidentally" forgotten all those candy bars.
A few months ago, a young man who appears to be 7 months pregnant gave me a "pep talk" on exercise. I told him that I have been exercising deligently for a few decades now. To which, he replied "oh...... yeah so have I" and promptly left the room.
Was this man telling the Truth? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But I doubt it. You could sense by the reckless way he exercised that he was unfamiliar with proper pacing and proper technique.
If he was lying, was he aware of this lie? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.
There might have been just enough Truth in his lie to allow him to convince himself he is a deligient exerciser. Hey, walking to MacDonald's from the parking lot is exercise right people? See I exercise.
Famous words of George from Seinfeld:
-------------------------------------------------
It's not a lie if you really believe it, Jerry.
"Zig Ziglar said something like - "I never ate a candy bar by accident".
10 years ago, I worked with an extremely obese person who had 2 candy bars every lunch.
If you were to question her, she might say she was obese because she ate too many candy bars. In this case, she may not be deceiving herself.
Or, she might also say that she is fat because of "glandular" problem or slow metabolism. In this case, she may have "accidentally" forgotten all those candy bars.
A few months ago, a young man who appears to be 7 months pregnant gave me a "pep talk" on exercise. I told him that I have been exercising deligently for a few decades now. To which, he replied "oh...... yeah so have I" and promptly left the room.
Was this man telling the Truth? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But I doubt it. You could sense by the reckless way he exercised that he was unfamiliar with proper pacing and proper technique.
If he was lying, was he aware of this lie? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.
There might have been just enough Truth in his lie to allow him to convince himself he is a deligient exerciser. Hey, walking to MacDonald's from the parking lot is exercise right people? See I exercise.
Famous words of George from Seinfeld:
-------------------------------------------------
It's not a lie if you really believe it, Jerry.
knight4christ8
Puritan Board Freshman
Logic is used to test for meaning. Once meaningfulness is grasped and affirmed, truth is affirmed.
Logic is the means by which a finite rational being tests and affirms truth value.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
In light of Civbert and Puritanhead's discussion from page one:
Does one know that the President of the United States in the 1980´s had the initials R.R. if he thinks that Roy Rogers was President then?
Let´s talk about time.
1. Justification: Inductive inference that the clock is working based upon history
2. Belief: Believe as true the time the clock indicates, which is 12:00
3. Truth: It is 12:00
Someone might say that since all the criteria have been met, one can know it is 12:00 given inductive-knowledge. However, the 3 criteria allow one to say that he knows it is 12:00 even when relying upon a broken clock! Shouldn't this intuitively bother us? Can we "know" things based upon false information? The problem with induction is that inferences that are rational to maintain can always be false.
Let me try to make this even more glaring. Let´s say there is another man in the room who has strong reason to believe that the clock is broken. Accordingly, this man will not rely upon the clock. In fact, this man believes that any justification of the time based upon the clock will be unwarranted. The point should be obvious. The man who is most informed about the clock is not able to know the time, whereas the man with less information about the clock can "œknow" the time if inductive inference allows for such knowledge! If anyone is looking for a reductio, then here it is. Given and inductive-knowledge, having less information can be a necessary condition for more knowledge, and having more information can cause one to rationally lose the knowledge he once had! Ignorance truly can be bliss. It´s one thing to have a rational inference about a truth value and quite another thing to have knowledge of a truth value.
Now let me sum this up. The first man´s inference about the clock was rational because based upon history the clock had an extremely high probability of working; say 99.9%. The second man had an entirely different rational inference based upon his history with broken clocks. He believed that there was less than 1% chance of the clock working the day after he observed it not working. Both men were making rational inferences based upon their finite perspectives and information. At the very least, given inductive-knowledge, deductive or revelatory knowledge becomes something of a different order and not merely a difference in degree. We need to distinguish the two. I prefer reserving the term knowledge to more than inductive inferences, allowing for rational inferences that yield to the maximal degree what John Frame might call "œpsychological certainty" as opposed to epistemic certainty, or knowledge rightly called.
Can anyone be certain of the time?
Let´s say that there is one clock in the world that is the standard of time. In other words, let´s assume that it indicates the "œtrue time." Now let´s say we were to hook up a digital transmitter to the clock that would output the time to a series of data acquisition systems all running in parallel. Would all of the systems record the same time at any exact instance? No. How can we arrive at the true time then? Some might take the median time of all the times recorded as call it the true time. Someone else might take the arithmetic mean and someone else the mode. Let´s say we were to conclude that at a particular instance the true time was 12:00 noon +/.000000000000000000000000001 milliseconds. How many points of time can fit between that very variance? Well an infinite number of course. Accordingly, what is the probability of one knowing the true time? Well 1/infinity of course. Well, what is 1/infinity? Well zero of course. Consequently, no matter what the time is, nobody knows the true time!
Finally, induction always operates under the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent. It would be misleading, however, to say that inductive reasoning is always fallacious. Rather, by repeated tests through asserting the consequent a veracity of belief can be in order. "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A" is of course fallacious. However: "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A has more veracity..." is of course the basis for science and sound. To say that science is always wrong because it asserts the consequence has great shock value but all it really reduces to is that induction is not deduction, which is no great discovery.
Ron
Does one know that the President of the United States in the 1980´s had the initials R.R. if he thinks that Roy Rogers was President then?
Let´s talk about time.
1. Justification: Inductive inference that the clock is working based upon history
2. Belief: Believe as true the time the clock indicates, which is 12:00
3. Truth: It is 12:00
Someone might say that since all the criteria have been met, one can know it is 12:00 given inductive-knowledge. However, the 3 criteria allow one to say that he knows it is 12:00 even when relying upon a broken clock! Shouldn't this intuitively bother us? Can we "know" things based upon false information? The problem with induction is that inferences that are rational to maintain can always be false.
Let me try to make this even more glaring. Let´s say there is another man in the room who has strong reason to believe that the clock is broken. Accordingly, this man will not rely upon the clock. In fact, this man believes that any justification of the time based upon the clock will be unwarranted. The point should be obvious. The man who is most informed about the clock is not able to know the time, whereas the man with less information about the clock can "œknow" the time if inductive inference allows for such knowledge! If anyone is looking for a reductio, then here it is. Given and inductive-knowledge, having less information can be a necessary condition for more knowledge, and having more information can cause one to rationally lose the knowledge he once had! Ignorance truly can be bliss. It´s one thing to have a rational inference about a truth value and quite another thing to have knowledge of a truth value.
Now let me sum this up. The first man´s inference about the clock was rational because based upon history the clock had an extremely high probability of working; say 99.9%. The second man had an entirely different rational inference based upon his history with broken clocks. He believed that there was less than 1% chance of the clock working the day after he observed it not working. Both men were making rational inferences based upon their finite perspectives and information. At the very least, given inductive-knowledge, deductive or revelatory knowledge becomes something of a different order and not merely a difference in degree. We need to distinguish the two. I prefer reserving the term knowledge to more than inductive inferences, allowing for rational inferences that yield to the maximal degree what John Frame might call "œpsychological certainty" as opposed to epistemic certainty, or knowledge rightly called.
Can anyone be certain of the time?
Let´s say that there is one clock in the world that is the standard of time. In other words, let´s assume that it indicates the "œtrue time." Now let´s say we were to hook up a digital transmitter to the clock that would output the time to a series of data acquisition systems all running in parallel. Would all of the systems record the same time at any exact instance? No. How can we arrive at the true time then? Some might take the median time of all the times recorded as call it the true time. Someone else might take the arithmetic mean and someone else the mode. Let´s say we were to conclude that at a particular instance the true time was 12:00 noon +/.000000000000000000000000001 milliseconds. How many points of time can fit between that very variance? Well an infinite number of course. Accordingly, what is the probability of one knowing the true time? Well 1/infinity of course. Well, what is 1/infinity? Well zero of course. Consequently, no matter what the time is, nobody knows the true time!
Finally, induction always operates under the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent. It would be misleading, however, to say that inductive reasoning is always fallacious. Rather, by repeated tests through asserting the consequent a veracity of belief can be in order. "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A" is of course fallacious. However: "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A has more veracity..." is of course the basis for science and sound. To say that science is always wrong because it asserts the consequence has great shock value but all it really reduces to is that induction is not deduction, which is no great discovery.
Ron
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Ron:
Do we know that the things you said are absolutely certaint? Whether we have "psycological certainty" or "epistemic certainty", is it certainty under these criteria? If, on the other hand, we have objective truth revealed to us, do we then have sufficient grounds for certainty? In other words, does it depend on us in any way, instead of on the giver of certainty: does certainty depend on our limitedness, our finitude? If it depends on us, then certainty is not possible, for we are limited and finite; if it depends upon God, then it is possible, because He is unlimited and infinite; is this not so?
Therefore, if there is an infinite reference point behind all truth, namely God, then induction is possible, and not necessarily misleading. It is not only possible, but is different for the scientist who presupposes man's objectivity instead of God's objective revelation in that which science investigates. When a scientist makes an induction, and he refuses to include the BIG truth that God made all things, then is his induction valid? That is different than a man who has certainty in Christ, and makes inductions based upon the superior truth of Christ's revelation, His self-attestation of Himself, in both general revelation and special revelation.
Just some thoughts that you post brought to mind. It got some wheels turning. I'm trying to point to a difference between what the world calls induction and what we would call induction as believers in the revealed truth of God's Word. It seems to me this would make quite a difference in justifications.
Do we know that the things you said are absolutely certaint? Whether we have "psycological certainty" or "epistemic certainty", is it certainty under these criteria? If, on the other hand, we have objective truth revealed to us, do we then have sufficient grounds for certainty? In other words, does it depend on us in any way, instead of on the giver of certainty: does certainty depend on our limitedness, our finitude? If it depends on us, then certainty is not possible, for we are limited and finite; if it depends upon God, then it is possible, because He is unlimited and infinite; is this not so?
Therefore, if there is an infinite reference point behind all truth, namely God, then induction is possible, and not necessarily misleading. It is not only possible, but is different for the scientist who presupposes man's objectivity instead of God's objective revelation in that which science investigates. When a scientist makes an induction, and he refuses to include the BIG truth that God made all things, then is his induction valid? That is different than a man who has certainty in Christ, and makes inductions based upon the superior truth of Christ's revelation, His self-attestation of Himself, in both general revelation and special revelation.
Just some thoughts that you post brought to mind. It got some wheels turning. I'm trying to point to a difference between what the world calls induction and what we would call induction as believers in the revealed truth of God's Word. It seems to me this would make quite a difference in justifications.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi John,
I don´t know whether you are certain of things but certainty is available to us.
Sometimes, not always. Not all things in Scripture are plain. God´s existence is certain to all men since all men believe in God with maximal justification.
On something that must be deduced, unlike God´s existence, it will depend on both God and man but God must effectually give man the belief in the truth.
When you say induction is impossible, do you mean that it is rational to draw inference? Well, I agree with that. If you mean that we can know things through induction with certainty, well I´m sympathetic to that. However, I would say that we could not know that we know things through induction. If we do know things through induction, it´s because God has granted a necessary, causal relationship to those things that appear to us as such. He would also have to grant us some warrant to believe that things must be the way they are. Does he do this? I don´t know nor do I think we can know.
Yes, his inference would be rational; he just might not be able or willing to give a justification for his inference. Having warrant and articulating warrant are two different things. All men know that it is wrong to murder. How can man justify this claim apart from Scripture?
Blessings,
Ron
I don´t know whether you are certain of things but certainty is available to us.
Sometimes, not always. Not all things in Scripture are plain. God´s existence is certain to all men since all men believe in God with maximal justification.
On something that must be deduced, unlike God´s existence, it will depend on both God and man but God must effectually give man the belief in the truth.
When you say induction is impossible, do you mean that it is rational to draw inference? Well, I agree with that. If you mean that we can know things through induction with certainty, well I´m sympathetic to that. However, I would say that we could not know that we know things through induction. If we do know things through induction, it´s because God has granted a necessary, causal relationship to those things that appear to us as such. He would also have to grant us some warrant to believe that things must be the way they are. Does he do this? I don´t know nor do I think we can know.
Yes, his inference would be rational; he just might not be able or willing to give a justification for his inference. Having warrant and articulating warrant are two different things. All men know that it is wrong to murder. How can man justify this claim apart from Scripture?
Blessings,
Ron
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Jesus and me, Jesus being the Truth and me struggling with 2 and 2 make 4... = trying to comprehend the equasion in all it's glory. Lol
What a dull and yet a intelligent question at the same time.
Dafydd.
The latter me showing grace lol!
[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]
- Status
