The Logic of Apples and Oranges

If you meaningfully critique one of my articles, you will get a meaningful response. So here are the statements of JDHURF, from the Free Thoughts for the Enslaved Mind thread:

This entire paragraph is largely unintelligible and hard to read, no offense. Let me embark in any case. For I am a neo-Darwinian and this means that if a species has a certain characteristic, quality or mechanism (whether this is physical, psychological or social) I know it must have been acquired through the ceaseless work of evolution.

Ok. How did you “learn” them? Are they objective? Are they universal?

I notice that you called my paragraph “unintelligible.” But what if it is intelligible to me? What if my mode of reasoning leads me to believe something different than yours? What if, according to how I came to perceive logic, what I believe is “true” is different than what you believe is “truth.” Are we both right, or is there an objective, universal standard of logic that can come in and declare who is right and who is wrong?

Your first misstep was when you claim that in order to acquire a logical mind frame we must first “assume” logic. As you would say “this begs the question”: If we do not know of logic how may we assume it? Obviously for one to assume or to acquire logic one must be aware of its existence.

This very conversation necessarily assumes the laws of logic. I mean, how do I know that we are speaking the same language, apart from the laws of logic? How do I know that English is not French? Words themselves presuppose the laws of logic, for words are simply characters that represent objects, objects that follow the necessary principle that A cannot equal non-A (for if they are objects, then they exist and are therefore not nonexistent). Can you tell me how we can have this conversation without necessarily assuming the existence of the laws of logic?

So, in reality, the laws of logic do exist (as a necessary assumption) and they are objective and they are universal. The question is how you can account for objective, universal laws in an atheistic worldview. You see, it is my contention that the laws of logic exist because this is God’s universe. Logic exists because God exists; it represents the thinking of an eternal, immutable, and perfect God. It is my belief that no other worldview can account for the laws of logic.

Which brings me to this point, logic is secondary…follow me. Your example of finding out the difference between apples and non-apples is a rather shoddy example but I shall play along. We would both agree that knowing apples are different from non-apples is logical and that one is, indeed, using logic to differentiate between the two. However, one does not need to accept and understand the intangible idea and definition of the word logic to know the difference.

If you are saying that one must know the word “logic” and the rigid definition “A cannot equal non-A” then that is not what I’m defending. That is besides the point. Whether or not someone knows that it is indeed logic that he is using, he inevitably uses it when he distinguishes apples from oranges (the objects, more so than the word. Words, as I said earlier, are simply characters that represent objects. For all we know, in the language of hilzilberganism, “apples” and “oranges” are two words that represent the same objects. But that does not make one object the same thing as non-that object).

But this seems to only be a distraction. Two year olds use the laws of logic, without knowing what they are. But the question is how you can account for these universal, objective laws in your atheistic worldview. In any case, you are incorrect in your statement “Logic is secondary.” A verbal formulation of the laws of logic is secondary, but logic itself is not secondary. It is necessarily primary.

An individual does not need language to understand the difference between, say, apples and oranges.

Well, I said earlier that when I mean “apples” and “oranges,” I am speaking of the objects that these words represent (assuming the laws of logic) in our common language. But how do I know that one taste is not the same taste as another taste, apart from the laws of logic? I mean, it is not enough to have taste-buds that can distinguish between flavors. We need the laws of logic that tell us that two “different” flavors are actually different. So, if you will please cease avoiding the question, I’d like you to tell me how you can account for these laws in your atheistic worldview.

All one needs to do is bite into an apple and taste the apple and then bite into an orange and taste the orange, after having done this the individual now has data at their disposal, the tastes between both the apple and the orange. The individual upon seeing an apple resting besides an orange will remember the sensations of eating both fruits and recall that the apple had a different taste then that of the orange (not to mention the plethora of other differences). The individual has now understood the difference between an apple and an orange without using the “laws of logic” but rather an investigative, observational inquiry and remembrance of such things.

The fact that the two sets of data are “different” presupposes the laws of logic. I agree that this is how we interact with these laws, and I stated earlier that one does not need to know the phrase “the laws of logic” and its rigid definition in order to inevitably use them. So how can you account for them?

The “law” of logic is secondary, it comes after such data is collected and sorted out in the mind.

The mind formulates the law in verbal format after it experiences the law, correct. But the mind does not create the law based upon its experiences; the experiences happen because of the law (the fact that data is distinguishable presupposes the law), and therefore the experiences are able to be intelligible, which means they can then be formed as verbal laws. But this person’s very experiences depend upon the existence of the laws of logic in order to formulate these laws. Even before he has mentally and verbally formulated the phrase “A cannot equal non-A,” he has assumed that they exist in his distinguishing two supposedly “different” sensations as different. But how does he know that they are not, in fact, the same sensation? If the laws of logic do not exist, regardless of how he feels, it would be perfectly find to equate every sensation he ever experiences as “the same sensation.” It would be utterly and completely impossible, therefore, to distinguish between any two objects in the universe. You see, he assumed the laws of logic (and perhaps even the uniformity of nature) in his very experiencing of the data, long before he verbally defines these laws. I think you would agree that his defining of the laws does not create the laws, but simply flows from their objective existence. But what you fail to see is that even in his experiencing of the laws, he assumes the laws, and necessarily so.

The mind constructs logic based on real world observations and interactions. Logic is secondary to experiences, sensations, and senses but to be truly objective about these things one must use the methodology of science so as to not confuse and misconstrue these things. So as you see we have not come to know the statement apples are not the same as non-apples through assuming logic but rather by investigating and experiencing sensation and life. After having done this we then constructed logic, we did not “assume” it.

Nice try, but this is simply incorrect. Experiences depend upon the initial assumption of these laws. How can one investigate anything, without the laws of logic? How can he distinguish between two objects, if, in an irrational universe, every object is equal? No, here is the process:

1. The laws of logic are necessarily assumed
2. The laws of logic are inevitably experienced
3. The laws of logic are verbally formed

Throughout your comments you equate the verbal formation of these laws to the necessary assumption of these laws. Yes, the verbal formation comes only after one experiences these laws; he experiences that the sensation of an “apple” is different than the sensation of an “orange” (the objects, not the words). But how does he know “different” apart from first assuming the laws of logic? These laws cannot be experienced without first being assumed. Then, after all of this, they can be verbally formed.

You said: [quote]“Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven?”[/quote]

I am rather astounded by this statement. Are you claiming that there is no uniformity in nature and material existence? Are you claiming that there is chaos? Are you claiming that there is uniformity but that science cannot describe it?

I certainly believe there is a uniformity of nature, and I believe in the basic reliability of science. But I believe the nature is uniform because of God’s ordinary providence; the universe is a uniform, logical universe because God not only created it, but he is absolutely sovereign over it and absolutely active in it.

But notice that you fail to address my paragraph. How can you account for a uniformity of nature in your atheistic worldview? My paragraph states that science requires a uniformity of nature. Do you beleive that that the universe is a uniform universe, that the properties in one scientific experiment are the same in the next scientific experiment? How can you, in your atheistic worldview account for this uniformity? You see, the question isn’t if there is a uniformity. The question is how you and I can account for this uniformity in our worldviews. I’ve told you how I account for it in my worldview. Will you tell me how you account for it in your worldview?

Science, actually, does not require a uniformity of nature. There is much of scientific endeavor that is ceaselessly preoccupied by following the constant change and flow of nature, the inconstant aspects of it so to say. Nature is not always uniform or constant, as the theory of evolutions suggests, it is constantly changing and “evolving” hence the theory. There are, however, certain aspects of nature which simply are uniform and are not subject to change such as the chemical elements that make up the periodic table. The chemical elements that make up the periodic table present a “uniformed” trend, example: ALL of the elements of group eighteen (the noble gases) have full valence shells. They attain a full shell with out the necessity of reacting with other elements, which means that they are unreactive monoatomic gases. This is “uniformed” it has been observed, observed again and yet observed again that this is the case. Are you suggesting that it is both possible and plausible that tomorrow, unbeknownst to chemists and scientists around the world that, helium may require a reaction with another element to retain its full valence shell rendering it no longer a fellow unreactive monoatomic gas? I hope not. Uniformity can be known and shown to exist by observing and testing certain elements of nature such as the chemical elements that I mentioned. We can interact with, test, observe, instigate and analyze the functioning of certain natural mechanisms and do so repeatedly, when we find that a certain situation always produces certain results we can safely say that this situation is always going to be the cause; scientists actually have to attempt to disprove and discredit their hypothesis and then other peers will then attempt to out right disprove findings and conclusions. If chemists consistently say that transition metals form good homogeneous or heterogenous catalysts it is safe to believe that this is, in fact, the case and is not subject to change dramatically the next day.

You’re making the same mistake here that you made with logic; you use the uniformity of nature in order to prove the uniformity of nature. Let’s see:

Nature is not always uniform or constant, as the theory of evolutions suggests, it is constantly changing and “evolving” hence the theory.

How do you know this? How do you know it is ever constant to any degree? How do you know that the milk you drink today has the same properties as the milk you drank yesterday, rather than the properties of everything else in the world shifting so as the give the illusional sensation that it possesses the same properties? We can’t test it scientifically; that assumes a uniformity of nature, for it assumes that the scientific properties are constant in order to prove that the scientific properties are constant.

There are, however, certain aspects of nature which simply are uniform and are not subject to change such as the chemical elements that make up the periodic table. The chemical elements that make up the periodic table present a “uniformed” trend, example: ALL of the elements of group eighteen (the noble gases) have full valence shells. They attain a full shell with out the necessity of reacting with other elements, which means that they are unreactive monoatomic gases. This is “uniformed” it has been observed, observed again and yet observed again that this is the case.

Again, the fact that it has been “observed” tells me nothing. We can observe the same thing thousands of times. But simply because the appearance brought by the scientific observation remains constant, that does not tell me that it is actually constant. Let’s say we’re observing the fact that all of the noble gases have full valence shells, by observing how each one reacts with other elements in a series of experiments. How do we know that the fundamental factors involved have not changed between experiments? I mean, really, how do we know? Again, I do not deny a uniformity of nature. I just believe that you cannot account for one in your worldview.

Are you suggesting that it is both possible and plausible that tomorrow, unbeknownst to chemists and scientists around the world that, helium may require a reaction with another element to retain its full valence shell rendering it no longer a fellow unreactive monoatomic gas? I hope not.

In my worldview, heck no! But that is because this is God’s universe. In your worldview, however, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Uniformity can be known and shown to exist by observing and testing certain elements of nature such as the chemical elements that I mentioned. We can interact with, test, observe, instigate and analyze the functioning of certain natural mechanisms and do so repeatedly, when we find that a certain situation always produces certain results we can safely say that this situation is always going to be the cause; scientists actually have to attempt to disprove and discredit their hypothesis and then other peers will then attempt to out right disprove findings and conclusions. If chemists consistently say that transition metals form good homogeneous or heterogenous catalysts it is safe to believe that this is, in fact, the case and is not subject to change dramatically the next day.

As I have stated, these observations assume a uniformity in order to prove a uniformity. There is no reason to believe, apart from assuming a uniformity, that the factors involved in one test are the same factors involved in the next test (Let’s not forget all of the factors involved in an experiment, even the surrounding contextual atmosphere involved. Even if the elements of the object of the experiment are constant, what reason to we have to believe that the surrounding atmosphere is equally constant? Cannot the surrounding atmosphere have fatal effects on the result of the experiment?). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the future will be like the past, for this assumes a uniformity. You say, “If chemists consistently say that transition metals form good homogeneous or heterogenous catalysts it is safe to believe that this is, in fact, the case and is not subject to change dramatically the next day.” Why not? I hope you aren’t assuming a uniformity in order to prove a uniformity…

Without uniformity there is still science, chaos theory anyone? Viruses evolve and change on a daily basis and science follows these changes and creates new vaccines and medicines to combat these viruses, there is little uniformity in viruses yet there is virology the scientific study of viruses.

Viruses “change” within the contextual atmosphere of a uniform universe. Let’s not commit a semantic fallacy here. You know very well that the “change” involved in a virus simply cannot equate to the universal change that would result from a non-uniform nature.

You said: [quote]“There is no ‘true’ or ‘false’ apart from logic”[/quote]

I want to clear something up. There actually is true and false apart from logic. Logic is merely a structure of propositions, a mode of reasoning.

Logic is the very spinal-cordial structure for reasoning. Apart from logic, there is no “reasoning,” for logic itself is “reason”; they are synonymous. Apart from logic, true equals false; therefore, there is no true and no false. Everything is nothing (a statement that makes complete sense in an irrational universe).

This structure of propositions and mode of reasoning may lead someone that is unknowledgeable regarding modern science that the moon at night is actually emitting its own light. This is logical to the individual without modern science and astronomy, for it certainly seems logical to conclude that a celestial body that is bright and lights up the dark night sky is actually emitting its own light rather than reflecting light emitted from the sun that is merely hidden beyond the horizon of the earths surface. The individuals “logic” (structure of propositions and mode of reasoning) has now led the individual into believing a falsehood.

I must say, this is a tad bit pathetic on your part (no offense). I’m not discussing how stupid people apply their understanding of logic. My first paragraph in response to you, hopefully, shows that if this is all that is the case, then there is no point in our debating. If there is no universal and objective standard of logic that can come in and declare something “true” and something else “false,” there is no point in our debate; I might as well declare myself the winner, and you will have to concede that according to my understanding of logic, that is true. But notice that you get the idea. You say, “The individuals “logic” (structure of propositions and mode of reasoning) has now led the individual into believing a falsehood.” Why is it a “falsehood”? Well, obviously because objective and absolute truth exists; and we live in a universe that is bound by objective and universal laws of logic (for this is God’s universe).

But how does this paragraph of yours make sense in light of your previous statement? You said, “There actually is true and false apart from logic. Logic is merely a structure of propositions, a mode of reasoning.” So was the “falsehood” true or false? You might say that, according to the individual, it was true. But was it absolutely true, or simply relatively true? Obviously, it was only a matter of relativity (relative to the individual’s understanding), for you were able to come in with an objective standard of logic and call it “falsehood.” You confuse the word logic in an attempt to negate my statement that there is no true or false apart from logic. You equate a person’s fallible use of the laws of logic with the laws of logic themselves.

Truth is something that exists and is real whether humans are able to understand and accept it or not. False is merely something that we know, or think we know is not “true”; so false is not apart from logic. One needs logic to be able to interpret something as being true or not so as to be able to lay claim to falsehood. Truth, however, is different. Truth resides outside of human logic, whether our logic tells us the earth revolves around the sun or not this is true, the earth revolves around the sun and this truth is, in fact, apart from logic. To sum up falsehoods do not exist (obviously) but in order to conclude this we must use logic, we must also use logic to conclude if something is true or not; however something is true regardless of whether or not our logic tells us so. Truth and logic are certainly two different items and truth certainly can be apart from logic. To claim otherwise is, well, illogical.

Truth is simply a term that represents the existence of the object itself. You rightly note that the object exists, no matter what we believe about it. Truth exists by definition, because “true” is simply a word that describes the existence of an object (whether the object is material or immaterial, a “thing” or a “concept” or an immaterial being, God).

But let’s not detract from the subject at hand. Truth is immutable because of logic. Something that exists today, if it is the same tomorrow, exists tomorrow, because of the immutability of truth that is grounded in the objectivity of logic (which is grounded in the immutability, eternality, and perfection of the Christian God). Our discussion, however, concerns whether or not an atheistic worldview can account for the objectivity of truth and the objectivity of falsehood (the objectivity of falsehood is based in the objectivity of truth, for if A is objectively and immutably A, then non-A is objectively and immutably non-A, and therefore cannot be A), mainly, the laws of logic. You have yet to tell me how it can.

However if you mean that something either true or false cannot be apart from logic based on the distinct principles of bivalency, involution, idempotency, contraction, DeMorgan and others I feel that you should be clear and make such a distinction regarding what sort of logic you are specifically referring to.

What I am referring to concerns specifically the rationality of propositions that represent truth claims. You reject the Christian worldview, for instance. I suppose that you feel that your rejection of it is a rational rejection of it. If I were to ask you why you reject it, you would be required to explain your position rationally, using the laws of logic. Now, remember that we are debating whether or not something is true. Therefore, the laws of logic prohibit us from calling true “false” and calling false “true.” But without the laws of logic, true is false, and therefore does not exist, at least in our discussion. This is why there can be no true or false apart from the laws of logic.

So if you could, please now tell how you:

1) Can account for the laws of logic in an atheistic worldview
2) Came to learn the laws of logic

I think that maybe you were trying to present your “logic” in one of these various forms though I am not sure what the following represents:

( ) P–>Q
( ) P
:.Q

What in the world is that? I am, somewhat, familiar with prepositional logic and Boolean algebra but I have not seen this before.

This is why the context of discussion is important. You only caught a glimpse of a discussion that was occurring in another thread. I had made this argument:

1. For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God must exist.
2. Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do exist.
3. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God exists.

My opponent, in response, said that the argument was fallacious. But what he really meant was that he did not accept the premise (point 1). Whether or not the premise is correct has no consequence with whether or not the actual construction of the argument is fallacious, and I showed him this by removing the propositions and simply writing out the basic transcendental form. Whether or not the premise is true has nothing to do with the fact that if the premise is true, then the conclusion is true. I told him that it was a bit silly of him to declare a “stale-mate” (one of those “agree to disagree,” fancy way of losing situations) and call my argument fallacious simply because he does not accept the premise. This simply begs the question, for the very thing we were debating was the premise, as we are doing here.

Evan May.