Simple question

Post Reply New Topic

Hey people i've got a little question which i wouldn't mind you answering:

a) If something makes sense (logically, and in their thought process etc) to a person, then does that make it true (objectively)?

And also vice versa ie if something doesn't make sense, then does that make it untrue?

Also if you're answer to that question is no, then can somebody please explain to me:

b) why do many people feel that this is the case, ie they are certain that if something makes sense, logically, to them then they are certain, and, feel that it proves something is true?

Im not sure any of that makes any sense but if anybody can give me some answers then it would be great

cheers
Gassy

Of course not. There is such a thing as bad logic and bad data, both of which can convince a person that they are right when in fact they are objectively wrong.

Often the people who are most convinced that their logic is perfect are the ones who absolutely refuse to look at counterarguments or new data.

This reminds me of Philosophy class when we covered Anselm, along with other philosophers trying to logically prove God's existence.

1) God is great.
2) If God did not exist then he would be less great.
3) Therefore God exists.

or Descartes:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, if you found these arguments to be logically sound, does that mean that God exists? It is impossible because eventually two people will disagree with the logic of an idea.

Nope. Someone could misunderstand formal logic, or they could be starting from false premises.


Usually, but sometimes more information and a better understanding is needed.


Because people have a sloppy epistemology.

I think you need a moral relativist to chime in here:
Previous posters have assumed that the logic that lead to the surety can be wrong, and in that they've answered the question sufficiently for me.

However, even if the logic is impeccable, they can only come to a local truth (or relative truth) it can be true, but only from their perspective. Why is this? because there are implicit assumptions made even in the most formal of logic.
In truth, nothing can be objectively true. Though the same cannot be said about false... Things can be objectively (and absolutely) false.

The assumptions that we make, that i'm talking about seem trivial, and unimportant...
For example... 1+1= 2, right?
well, not in binary, it's 10.
(yeah, that's a silly example, but it works)

It's wrong to kill someone.
Well, what if someone has a gun pointed at your son/daughter's head?

Up is towards the sky, down to the centre of the earth...
Only if you set your basis on a gravitational basis.

What i'm saying, is that no matter what you think, say, do, feel, you make assumptions. Some are perfectly valid assumptions too, but those assumptions do put limits on the "objective truth" of the conclusions.

Math is a good example... If you are just trying to find out how long it takes to travel to a city from the town you live in, it doesn't really matter that the speed you travel has relativistic effects on time passage, and it will only change the time by say 0.00000000000000000000000001 seconds.... So you assume that away.

From different points of view, the triviality of what you assume away may change.


The answer here is because they can't understand what I just said. I honestly believe it's because people are unable to accept that there can be no absolute. Or they over-trivialize the assumptions they make. I do it too, as do you. We hopefully recognize what we're doing, and try to correct it. Some don't. Those are the ones that believe something can be intrinsically right or wrong. The prevalence of "god" in our society has something to do with it. It is generally assumed that this "god" is absolute, so therefore an absolute is possible. However, it's possible that the belief in a god is just a symptom of the same problem that causes people to have problems with relativity. And which it is, I do not know.

Consistency does not guarantee factual/objective truth. A world in which the Confederates won the Battle of Gettysburg is possible, logically consistent and perfectly in line with physical laws. It just so happens not to be this world.

On the other hand inconsistency invariably means at least one premise is false.

A consistent world is a possible world, not necessarily the actual world. An inconsistent world is impossible.

ruveyn

Well, 1 + 1 = 2 = 10.

Note - while we Kant [intended] KNOW objective truth, we can get a working hypothesis that at least works.

BUT - note that it is not the case that for all it has to make sense. I prefer it to make sense, but will often accept it if a same-thinker maintains it msakes sense. My sislaw will accept it without questioning sense if it is endorsed by an Oprah type. My brother will accept it without questioning sense if it is endorsed by a Scientist.

1+1=4

(One Man + One Woman = Two Adults and Two Children)

If a thing seems logical then it may or not be true.

But if a thing is true then it must be logical and scientific.

In the bible god "stopped the sun" for the battle to continue.

What? He suddenly stopped the earth from rotating?

We know that is impossible, therefore it didn't happen.

1=32?

Logic leads people to wrong conclusions all the time. Logic is just a way of handling data to come to a conclusion. If your data is incomplete, the logical conclusion will be wrong.

Example: upon observing the sun over the course of days, it is completely logical to conclude that it revolves around the earth. If your (incomplete) data is the observation that it rises in the east and sets in the west every single day, rotation around the earth is a very logical conclusion and one that many people have come to over time.


Data is frequently incomplete.

The reverse is also true. Incomplete data can make something true seem illogical and nonsensical. That's why the word "counterintuitive" was coined.

Nevertheless people hold onto the idea that their seemingly sensible, logical idea must therefore be true. What they are actually insisting is that they have complete data while the person who disagrees is actually insisting that they have incomplete (or just incorrect) data. The logical conclusion is only as good as the data.

This is referred to as "junk in, junk out" in computer modelling.

No. It could be argued that nothing is objective, since everyone sees with their eyes and uses their own biased brains to make sense of it, but believing in something does not make it objectively true, otherwise I'd be a very rich person right now (logically, to me at any rate, I ought to bet! )


Nope. Think of all the things that didn't make sense to people in the past. The sun didn't stop existing. Equally, scientists still haven't made sense of the universe, but that's ticking along nicely as we type.


Can you elaborate exactly what you mean here? It can depend on what is being 'proved'