Philosophy 101.2

[333]

Peace,

Evidence:

Inference:

(supporting /interpretation/ beliefs)

To arrive at truth , we have to reason correctly. Philosophers have always appreciated that fact and have made the study of correct reasoning -logic- one of their central concerns. Logic doesn't attempt to determine how people -in fact- reason. Rather it attempts to determine how people -should- reason if they want to avoid error and falsehood.

Logical thinking is rational thinking, and rational thinking is that which is most likely to lead us to the truth.

;Our reason must be considered as a kind of cause, of which truth is the natural effect.--
David Hume

Peace

[333]

Peace,

Argument: A group of statements consisting of one or more premises and a conclusion that purportedly follows from the premises.???

Premise: A reason given for accepting the conclusion of an argument.

Conclusion: The claim that an argument is trying to establish.



To present your reasons for believing something is to make an argument. From a logical point of view, then , an argument is a group of statements that attempts to justify a claim. The claim that statements attempt to justify is known as the conclusion of the argument, and the statements that supposedly justify it are known as the premises.

For Example:

1 All men are mortal.

2 Socrates is a man.

3 Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Arguments come in two basic varieties deductive and inductive. Good deductive arguments differ from good inductive ones in that they are valid.

In a valid argument the conclusion logically follows from its premises.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. --Buddha

Peace

[wax]

333- To arrive at truth , we have to reason correctly.

Wax-
What the...
Did you just...
Surely you can't be...

I'm kidding of course (in a specific way) because it is a statement that far too many philosophers make without considering the consequences.

OK:
It is 900 BC and I declare that the Earth is actually a ball floating through space which is largely empty and that we are really just going around that big bright light (that we only see during the day) in the sky.

I have decided to declare this because I know it to be true and I know it to be true because I took a crap this mourning that looked like an apple!
Now... have I "arrived at the truth" or not?

OK:
I am presented with a box and told that the inside is a specific color.
I am asked what that color is.
I decide it is red and of course it happens to be red.
Have I demonstrated "truth"?
Was I required to reason at all?

We really can't have things both ways.
The truth is the truth.
Logic is logic.
They are seperate entities.

[333]

Peace,

900 BCE

Even though your claims about the solar system as we know it today are in fact valid you still must provide evidence with your inference especially in 900 BCE.

Try a few articles about Blaise Pascal, brilliant mathematician
, inventor and philosopher. Of course it was red, was there any doubt. ? ;D

Of course logic, reason and truth are separate entities, logic and reason is how we arrive at truths for ourselves.

333

[333]

Peace,

Again, an example, here, and NOT AT ALL to berate or belittle anyone, as to why there is so much trouble talking or practicing philosophy, IT IS NOT ABOUT ARGUMENT, (well maybe later ) it is about arriving at truth, to many folks just want to flex their prowess, and BE RIGHT, rather than understand philosophy and practice its use effectively.

Unfortunately it side tracks the simplest of exercises. I have posted these threads to try and induce the practice of simple exercises so that with discourse in those parameters we can learn and confirm together these methods. I love to practice, and share with others this process, because each time I do I learn more. I have on the other hand no desire to compare brain pans, and argue pointlessly to prove right or wrong.

I akin it to the AIKIDO classes I teach. I have been a practitioner of NIHON GOSHIN AIKIDO, (Japanese Self Defense AIKIDO) (EYE KEY DOUGH) for close to 15 years, and a teacher, dojo owner operator, for 10. I DO NOT KNOW IT ALL by any means, but though practice, I learn in every class something new, from the people I practice with, and mostly from the students I "guide" as I practice with them.

The difference is I do not have a second degree in philosophy, and am not trying to teach anyone, only to practice, much like aikido, to be productive, we must practice safely, and with respect toward each other, it is not about being right or wrong, as with aikido, it is not about proving or disproving the techniques, it is about truth revealed through diligent cooperative practice.

Thanks

333