Investigating Logic itself seems impossible. I have to make an argument right now (see this is a premise) in order to discuss logic. Why do we accept the truth of logic if we cannot investigate it's truth except only logically? It may be a sort of personification, but it seems to me that logic would support its own claim to usefulness.
Even if that is not true, how do we begin to investigate the foundations that logic rests on?
Logic's primary function is not to investigate truth, however, it is a good method of reasoning whether something exists or not at the same time and space. If I rationally composed an understanding for something's existence, I should be able to demonstrate that through identifying general(defined) truth(s) and/or listing connected truths that allow for a separate, inferential statement to be made. Truth, as well as the connected justified inferential data, support the existence of a conclusion to be drawn. The inference that is in the reasoning is justified, if anyone else can infer the same reasoning when given the known information for the argument. The connection between the inference and the known truths are the basis for a conclusion. I will use logic to show that logic is the method of analyzing reason(s) for a given conclusion.
ReplyDeleteA)Inference is a rational association(reason) to something new based on something(s) that is known to be true.
Logic analyzes the process of inference that leads to a conclusion.
Logic analyzes the process of reason that leads to a conclusion.
As we get further into this text, I think you will see that logic need not be circularly self-authenticating. We will look at some techniques for proving the validity of argument forms that go down to very basic intuitions.
ReplyDeleteif logic was supposed to authenticate itself i feel that a large amount of reactions would not make any sense, because logic needs to analyze a premise and lead to an end statement.
ReplyDelete