Dearest Reader,
I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.
Indeed, I cheerfully pee from a considerable height upon nearly all purely logical arguments outside of the noble fields of mathematics and logic itself. It seems to me that logic alone is in most (albeit not all) cases at least as likely to lead to absurdities as it is likely to lead to truths. I have observed someone being misled by logical reasoning alone time and time again.
As a general rule, reasoning by logic alone simply should not be indulged in whenever it is possible to back up a truth-claim with empirical evidence. In my esteemed opinion, one disregards that rule at great risk.
The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence*. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.
But what do you yourself make of all this?
Yours in peeing on bad ideas,
Sunstone
_________________
*EDIT: I should make something clear. By "empirical evidence", I am not talking about the mere appearance of empirical evidence, but rather the actuality of it.
For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.
I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.
Indeed, I cheerfully pee from a considerable height upon nearly all purely logical arguments outside of the noble fields of mathematics and logic itself. It seems to me that logic alone is in most (albeit not all) cases at least as likely to lead to absurdities as it is likely to lead to truths. I have observed someone being misled by logical reasoning alone time and time again.
As a general rule, reasoning by logic alone simply should not be indulged in whenever it is possible to back up a truth-claim with empirical evidence. In my esteemed opinion, one disregards that rule at great risk.
The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence*. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.
But what do you yourself make of all this?
Yours in peeing on bad ideas,
Sunstone
_________________
*EDIT: I should make something clear. By "empirical evidence", I am not talking about the mere appearance of empirical evidence, but rather the actuality of it.
For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.
Last edited: