Can something "count" as true without the support of logic?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Long time lurker, First time poster... I freaking love this site.
I was in an online debate and was presented with this argument.
Now granted, I suppose you could call this a faith claim but only because I have never considered an alternative, nor been taught an alternative. So... my question would be:
I was in an online debate and was presented with this argument.
I would note further that your apparent positivism itself rests on what is logically a faith claim--specifically, the unprovable claim that nothing counts as true without being supported by logic and empirically verifiable data.
Now granted, I suppose you could call this a faith claim but only because I have never considered an alternative, nor been taught an alternative. So... my question would be:
- Can something "count" as TRUE without being supported by Logic?
- Additionally, is empirically verifiable data a pre-requisite for allowing something to be "counted" as TRUE?
Answers
3In critical thinking literature, authors distinguish broadly between two different meanings of the word "truth". One is regarded as the logic truth (If the conclusion follows from the premises) and the second is the material/factual truth ( i.e., a statement corresponds to reality like in the following: " The 4th of July is the national day in Usa."- which is factually true).
So... Can something "count" as TRUE without being supported by Logic?
Yes. If someone claims that logic is all you need in order to "prove" something as true they are wrong.They are committing the Fallacist's Fallacy (for details see: www.fallacyfiles.org/fall. . .
Additionally, is empirically verifiable data a pre-requisite for allowing something to be "counted" as TRUE?
Yes and no. Yes, because statements like: "My dead mother visited me last night in my dream" is a factual statement that requires data and/or empirical evidence so that can be considered/"counted" as true. No, because some things - like logical laws- are true without the support of factual data. But, in my opinion this example is more of an axiom and/or assumption that is very hard to be empirically verified. We assume they are true because, pragmatically, th absence of these laws would make a great part of logic obsolete. For instance, if we don't consider these laws "true" we would not have good theories of argumentation.
The two meanings of "truth" are not dependent upon each other but they are (together) the necessary and sufficient conditions for having good arguments.
So... Can something "count" as TRUE without being supported by Logic?
Yes. If someone claims that logic is all you need in order to "prove" something as true they are wrong.They are committing the Fallacist's Fallacy (for details see: www.fallacyfiles.org/fall. . .
Additionally, is empirically verifiable data a pre-requisite for allowing something to be "counted" as TRUE?
Yes and no. Yes, because statements like: "My dead mother visited me last night in my dream" is a factual statement that requires data and/or empirical evidence so that can be considered/"counted" as true. No, because some things - like logical laws- are true without the support of factual data. But, in my opinion this example is more of an axiom and/or assumption that is very hard to be empirically verified. We assume they are true because, pragmatically, th absence of these laws would make a great part of logic obsolete. For instance, if we don't consider these laws "true" we would not have good theories of argumentation.
The two meanings of "truth" are not dependent upon each other but they are (together) the necessary and sufficient conditions for having good arguments.
Yes, it can just be an observable fact or an agreed on definition.
Hi Brain!
Without attempting to define "truth," I will do my best to answer your direct questions.
Depending on how inclusive one defines "logic," I would say yes. For example, it is true that I feel hungry (truth based on a subjective feeling) or it is true that 1+1=2 (mathematical truth). Note that the former demonstrates a different kind of truth, one that is specific to an individual and not universal.
No, for the examples above, also for logical truths (e.g., the law of non-contradiction).
What the person who presented that "argument" to you appears to be doing is trying to demonstrate that their made up crap can be counted as "truth." To counter this, ask for their specific method of determining truth and provide examples on the kinds of "truths" that can be derived from that same method.
Without attempting to define "truth," I will do my best to answer your direct questions.
Can something "count" as TRUE without being supported by Logic?
Depending on how inclusive one defines "logic," I would say yes. For example, it is true that I feel hungry (truth based on a subjective feeling) or it is true that 1+1=2 (mathematical truth). Note that the former demonstrates a different kind of truth, one that is specific to an individual and not universal.
Additionally, is empirically verifiable data a pre-requisite for allowing something to be "counted" as TRUE?
No, for the examples above, also for logical truths (e.g., the law of non-contradiction).
What the person who presented that "argument" to you appears to be doing is trying to demonstrate that their made up crap can be counted as "truth." To counter this, ask for their specific method of determining truth and provide examples on the kinds of "truths" that can be derived from that same method.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course