Is Logic Alone Enough to Arrive at Firm Conclusions About Empirical Reality?

[Sunstone]

Outside of pure logic (i.e. deductive logic) and mathematics, are people who firmly believe something is empirically true based on logical reasoning alone -- and without testing their conclusions against empirical facts -- being fools? Why or why not?

This would be an example of a logical argument that might not be tested against empirical reality:

According to scripture, God took a rib from man to make woman.
Thus, men have one less rib than women.

 

[Jumi]

Logic can't help much if there is a lack of information. The less people know, the more confident they become since their self-made equations are so simple.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Outside of pure logic and mathematics, are people who firmly believe something is empirically true based on logical reasoning alone -- and without testing their conclusions against empirical facts -- being fools? Why or why not?

This would be an example of a logical argument that might not be tested against empirical reality:

According to scripture, God took a rib from man to make woman.
Thus, men have one less rib than women.

If we can deduce the truth of a matter through reason and logic alone, then the rational philosphers would be agreed. However this is far from the truth as their opinions are so divergent.

Science is founded on hypotheses that are often based on reason and logic. Many hypothesis in science prove unsuccessful when tested out.

If I started with the premise that all of the Bible is literally true, then logically a women would have eleven sets of ribs as men have twelve. When empirally tested we find this false. We must then reconsider our initial hypothesis. In this case the premise about the bible being literally true is in error. One who derives conclusions from logic and reason alone is a fool.

 

[osgart]

Without knowns logic is useless. And without knowing the cause and effect of something through empirical experience you cant order up a valid logical argument.

Some beliefs are compelling without an able test to verify that belief. The inner experience of consciousness as soul offers up some validities that are useful but how far can one know their inner experience objectively.

If all one has is patterns then there are no valid explanations. I do think that there are useful manipulations of reality that dont qualify as explanation. I do not think mathematics equates to actual reality, but there is so much truth to math that you can use it to manipulate reality effectively. Imo.

Absolute knowledge may be a fantasy in many cases, but what proves useful despite its knowability is all humans got to work with. Imo.

There is a better chance of knowing moral truth then physical truth. I mean why does existence obey natural laws? Why are the laws the way that they are and not something else?

So perhaps logic is for benefit, and utility moreso then actual explanation.

On some levels of reality you can derive knowns. Not on every level. So there are degrees of knowing. But to know reality as it truly is 100 percent may take an awfully long long time and some good fortune and a few Einsteins along the way.

 

[Curious George]

Outside of pure logic and mathematics, are people who firmly believe something is empirically true based on logical reasoning alone -- and without testing their conclusions against empirical facts -- being fools? Why or why not?

This would be an example of a logical argument that might not be tested against empirical reality:

According to scripture, God took a rib from man to make woman.
Thus, men have one less rib than women.

Deductive logic is the closest to Truth one can have. Is it foolish to firmly believe truth? Absolutely not. Problem is, many people make errors.

 

[Polymath257]

Outside of pure logic and mathematics, are people who firmly believe something is empirically true based on logical reasoning alone -- and without testing their conclusions against empirical facts -- being fools? Why or why not?

This would be an example of a logical argument that might not be tested against empirical reality:

According to scripture, God took a rib from man to make woman.
Thus, men have one less rib than women.

I'm hesitant to use the word 'fool', but they are fundamentally mistaken, I think. Logic is a very weak system and needs additional assumptions to operate upon. Mathematics is a very expressive language, but can just as easily express Euclidean geometry as non-Euclidean geometry. At most one of those is true in the real world.

I'm always a bit allergic to philosophies that say how things 'must be' without actually looking to see if that's how things really are. There is a long history of bad assumptions and vague definitions so I I require actual observations prior to accepting any claims about the real world. That includes things like causality, for example, or the nature of consciousness.

 

[Sunstone]

Deductive logic is the closest to Truth one can have. Is it foolish to firmly believe truth? Absolutely not. Problem is, many people make errors.

"Deductive logic" is also called "pure logic" and the OP explicitly stated that it was not under consideration here. My mistake, though. I didn't realize not everyone knows the term "pure logic". I have edited the OP accordingly.

 

[Curious George]

"Deductive logic" is also called "pure logic" and the OP explicitly stated that it was not under consideration here. My mistake, though. I didn't realize not everyone knows the term "pure logic". I have edited the OP accordingly.

No worries. I should have looked up the term. It is possible I knew it at one time.

Even outside of "pure" logic it is still not necessarily foolish to firmly believe (unless that is jargon as well). For example, we cannot test past events empiracally and we often must either firmly believe or disbelieve based on reasoning.