Quote:
Quote by: Zhavric  I don't see how you're getting "appeal to authority" out of this.
Traditionally, an appeal to authority is an argument based on the expertise of someone who's not an expert in a specific field. |
Not true. It is true that in most critical thinking books appeal to authority is defined as you say, however, it is any appeal to authority such as "I am right because I use reason."
Quote:
Because logic is a lot like math, we can actually grade logic the way we evaluate math.
1+1=2. That's neither opinion nor arbitrary. It's an axiom. One thing brought together with antoher thing gives us two things. Period.
Logic works much the same way. X = X. X =/= Y. Most logical syllogisms can be broken down into symbols that, to the layperson, appear to be mathmatic formulas.
So, when someone makes an unsupported claim that contradicts what's already proven, the burden is on the claimant to provide the evidence.
Please please please do not succumb to volconvo disease wherein basic logic and common sense become matters of intense debate and doubt.
|
I actually know mathematical logic (symbolic logic)...
Actually it is quite hard to "grade axioms." 1+1=2 is not as simple as you might think. Bertrand Russell spent the early part of his life trying to conclusively prove, without axioms, that 1+1=2.
We grade logic by the axioms it uses but to grade the axioms we need preexisting axioms. Thus Godel's Incompleteness theorem. We can only logically prove something once the axioms are agreed upon (which means logical truth is just what every one agrees on) we cannot prove the axioms we use are the right axioms. A good example of this is Euclidean geometry. For 2 thousand years everyone believed Euclid's axioms from which all geometry followed. Then in the 19th century people started questioning the axioms and came up with new one and thus we have non-Euclidean geometry. The point is that the system depends on axioms that are unprovable. These unprovable axioms can only be decided on through authority. Some people use the authority found in scripture other on experience, regardless it is an appeal to authority.
However, all this means is that there is not a truer way to settle fundamental questions but that does not imply there is not a better way to settle such questions. I just haven't thought of how to prove that one way is better yet. The way that seems to work well so far (I have been thinking about it a lot) is to ask how we first learn about fundamental questions (where does all our knowledge rest)? I think most would agree that experience is how we learn about the world around us. From this it follows that we only know fundamental questions through experience thus experience must be the judge of our answers to such questions. However, two problems that I can think of arise from this: 1) there is a resurgence of belief in innate ideas because of the popularity of evolution/anthropology and so experience my not be our only recourse and 2) David Hume's is/ought problem: Just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be. Just because we learn about fundamental questions through experience does not mean we ought to settle them with experience.
So basically, I am with you Zhav. I believe there is a right way and a common sense approach to the world. However, saying it is common sense will not convince others it is common sense. What I am trying to do is understand my beliefs by pretending I don't believe in them and asking myself difficult questions and forcing myself to convince my unbelieving self. Also, I often ask myself what it would take for me to believe in God. I've realized it would probably take an unreasonable amount of evidence to cause my belief (though it my not be unreasonable if one thinks of Hume's discussion of miracles).