Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Questions on Logic and the "Exasperating" nature of Skeptics
How would you convince the skeptic that the argument is valid?
Since an agreement cannot be reached through logic, other ways of knowing could be used to give further support. An immortal being probably won't feel pain, won't suffer, from factors that hurt humans. Pain comes from the body's system as it tries to warn the individual of potential danger that could lead to death. Through the use of our senses (perception), we can feel that we are mortal. Just as I am not, the skeptic is not immune to pain, a factor that demonstrates the body's fear of death and therefore supports the fact that we are human. The skeptic could argue in many ways, including that perception is a very subjective matter, therefore making it a highly unreliable knowledge. However, as subjective of an experience perception can be, perception still provides knowledge about the world, helps the individual in knowing a little more about the world. This makes perception is a way knowing, and makes pain valid evidence that we are indeed mortal.
Of course, there are multiple ways of going around the argument, trying to exclude logic. This may be one of them. But at the end, a skeptic is a skeptic, and arguing with them on and on would be, as the reading implies, a waste of my breath and the source of much frustration.
How would you persuade the believer to doubt the validity of the argument?
I could find a counterexample, using the exact format the believer is employing, and showing the fallacy the logical reasoning can have. It is true that most of the times, rainy days are gloomy and dark. However, there have been cases where it rained while there was sun shining, at the same time. It is difficult, and dangerous, to generalize occurrences, because even though these stereotypical statements are usually based on a certain degree of truth, they do not apply all the time to all individuals, events..., falling under the defining characteristics of the category. It is not safe to use the word "all", because that overlooks the fact that we are all distinct and unique beings. Although logic is a pretty solid basis for knowledge, it can be misleading and drive to a wrong conclusion sometimes. I can also show the errors of being too accepting with information, with being too indiscriminate with the gain of knowledge.
Or, as a side note, I can show the believer the text "Brain in a Vat" among other similar pieces to shake his/her belief that all humans are the same, and that the world around may not be as certain as one may think or desire to believe. Who knows? Maybe I am a goddess. And who knows? Maybe the world around me, my reality, is actually part of a computer program.
Is the skeptic's position a reasonable one? That is, do you think it is possible to reasonably deny the laws of logic given?
At first, I would think that it is highly unreasonable for the skeptic to doubt every single thing that is said. How can an extreme skeptic live if he/she doubts everything around him? There seems to be no trust, no set belief, no truth for them. They seem to not only believe but WANT to live in a lie.
However, when I reflect upon it further, I guess I can understand their point (though understanding does not mean agreeing). The questioning of the law of identity is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If we cannot have a basis of agreement, then there would be no communication. Language, our ability to share and express ideas, is based on the law of identity, on the formal and "official" agreements we have on naming and deciding upon different names and identification for different peoples, things.... But the law of non-contradiction. Even people who accept the existence of contradictions have trouble delving into their meaning, int grasping or settling upon what is meant. If even believers cannot agree, pinpoint, upon an interpretation of a contradictory statement, how can we expect a skeptic, who doubts every single claim, to acknowledge their possibility?
I guess I see skeptics as very definite people, as in seeing everything in "either black or white", and that they don't like the shades of gray in the middle. And since so many things, or maybe everything, in the world falls in the shades of gray, skeptic's eyes and ears and whatever else they receive information creating knowledge does not take it in.
What are the "correct" basic laws of logic?
In my opinion, the law of identity and the last two mentioned possible laws are true. The law of identity. Even though the attributed identity may be completely untrue, it is still the agreed consensus. In a way, yes, it is the tyranny of the majority. Nonetheless, it is still the identity that is used to refer to it. The fact that it is referred in that way during an argument about the validity of the identity is proof, because it is still used and acknowledged by the reference. The law of contradiction cannot be true, because everyone, or at least most people, have had a time where they had to acknowledge an alternative interpretation, truth. The previous sentences support why I believe there are other possibilities than the classification of true or false. Also, it is possible for something to be neither true nor false when it is a contradiction, when it cannot be decided, or agreed, that a claim is either true or false for all possible cases. That also explains why I think the law of excluded middle is not true. The world is not so cleanly-cut, straightforwardly defined. That is why there are so many arguments about knowledge, and that these questions about logic are possible.
Does reason free us or limit us?
I would say that reason binds us. Imagination is kept in check by reason. We may have fantasies, create many things in our mind, yet these thoughts and dreams are often not executed or pursued because of the "reality check". We are stopped by the realization that, logically speaking, what we are imagining is not plausible in reality, in the actual physical world. Emotions are controlled by reason. We may have many desires that are curbed by our belief that, logically speaking, these desires are unrealistic. Emotions, such as love and anger, are curbed by our reasoning the situation out in a rational way, instead of an emotional way. Even if I am overcome by despair and frustration, I might not go ahead and scream at the person who is the source of this turmoil of feelings because I do not want to aggravate the situation, make it a bigger deal. This is reasoning. I am using reason to weigh the consequences and evaluate my decisions, actions. Perception is often in conflict with reason, or determined by reason. I may feel that something is warm, but then doubt this perception of warmth because I am in the middle of the street in winter. I might tell myself, "No, that's impossible. I must be crazy." and discard the possibility of he source of heat because it does not fit in the picture, logically speaking.
And so on. The point is, I think reason may be the major source that limits our decisions. We always run into the reality pang, because we do not want to appear ridiculous in front of others. Maybe it is because logic may be the least subjective (therefore most objective) way of knowing that can be identified. My reasoning may not be that different as your reasoning and their reasoning, because we all live in a world where there are certain realms of acceptability.
But, simultaneously, from another perspective, reason has freed us from so many things. Our ability to reason has helped humankind make so much progress and advancements that have driven our society, our world, forward. Without reason, we would not have the majority of the things we have now. Look at history, all the technological and all other kinds of developments and innovations. Without reason, we would not have been able to have all these achievements that largely shape the world nowadays.
