Barung(s) for you

tom hyle · 10th February 2005, 01:49 PM

I had some thoughts that might be illuminating in this matter. I had them the other morning on the way to work, and wrote them down, so you won't be getting fresh or perhaps in-depth versions, but I still feel there's a certain relevance. The subject isn't swords, the subject is logic and argumentation etc. (tune out here.....) Also this isn't about anything hurting my feelings, though I do keenly feel that I "resemble those remarks". It is, like any argument, properly (duly noted), about finding the truth. I think I have found a way to make clearer and more interculturally penetrative (you like that?) the value of unsuported/nonfactual/etc. evidence. We have discussed the concept that fact and opinion are two different things, but that hardly covers the spectrum. Also very much to the point is that fact and truth/reality are two different things, as well. This goes to the bases of science and logic, BTW. A fact is not something that is true. A fact is something that has been PROVEN to be true. A theory is something that has been proven to be largely true, without rising to the level of absolute proof. The term fact only has meaning in the context of some group or institution that will approve or disapprove of the proof (perhaps appropriately and perhaps not, but that's not my point). Truth is simply true, and whatever some might tell you, reality is simply real. So a thing might be completely true without having been proven, or without even being provable or testable (this is a good example of what real science teaches and claims vs. the social-religious institutional beliefs and behaviors of its claimed followers; kinda like "Christians" burning people to death; funny how I don't remember Christ doing anything like that....); lack of proof is not a valid assault on reality, and not a good reason to disrespect or disregard a person.
Say we are hungry in the forest. I come and say I saw an animal go by. You ask me to take you to a track so we can follow it. I look around where it was, but can't find a track. Now, we don't have a track; no hard evidence we can use to kill dinner, but I did see it (or so I say; but would you address one so in the forest?), and I saw which way it went, and we can try to find tracks over that way, and use our imaginations and geographical and biological knowledge to figure out where it went. As we have no other resources, is this information, which is not as good as it might be, useless, or might it help us eat?
Formal "Western" logic in its basic "logic meet" (yes, they're real; they might be called logic bees; I can't remember) form must assume premises that are true; if you argue from false premises with it you get false results. But in the real world it is rarely safe and sure what is true, and we must argue, and indeed act, on questionable premises all the time. I wonder if "higher levels" of formal logic, or non-"Western" thought systems take this into account, and allow for or even enhance thinking of the kind we must do in the world we really inhabit?

10th February 2005, 01:49 PM	#18
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I had some thoughts that might be illuminating in this matter. I had them the other morning on the way to work, and wrote them down, so you won't be getting fresh or perhaps in-depth versions, but I still feel there's a certain relevance. The subject isn't swords, the subject is logic and argumentation etc. (tune out here.....) Also this isn't about anything hurting my feelings, though I do keenly feel that I "resemble those remarks". It is, like any argument, properly (duly noted), about finding the truth. I think I have found a way to make clearer and more interculturally penetrative (you like that?) the value of unsuported/nonfactual/etc. evidence. We have discussed the concept that fact and opinion are two different things, but that hardly covers the spectrum. Also very much to the point is that fact and truth/reality are two different things, as well. This goes to the bases of science and logic, BTW. A fact is not something that is true. A fact is something that has been PROVEN to be true. A theory is something that has been proven to be largely true, without rising to the level of absolute proof. The term fact only has meaning in the context of some group or institution that will approve or disapprove of the proof (perhaps appropriately and perhaps not, but that's not my point). Truth is simply true, and whatever some might tell you, reality is simply real. So a thing might be completely true without having been proven, or without even being provable or testable (this is a good example of what real science teaches and claims vs. the social-religious institutional beliefs and behaviors of its claimed followers; kinda like "Christians" burning people to death; funny how I don't remember Christ doing anything like that....); lack of proof is not a valid assault on reality, and not a good reason to disrespect or disregard a person. Say we are hungry in the forest. I come and say I saw an animal go by. You ask me to take you to a track so we can follow it. I look around where it was, but can't find a track. Now, we don't have a track; no hard evidence we can use to kill dinner, but I did see it (or so I say; but would you address one so in the forest?), and I saw which way it went, and we can try to find tracks over that way, and use our imaginations and geographical and biological knowledge to figure out where it went. As we have no other resources, is this information, which is not as good as it might be, useless, or might it help us eat? Formal "Western" logic in its basic "logic meet" (yes, they're real; they might be called logic bees; I can't remember) form must assume premises that are true; if you argue from false premises with it you get false results. But in the real world it is rarely safe and sure what is true, and we must argue, and indeed act, on questionable premises all the time. I wonder if "higher levels" of formal logic, or non-"Western" thought systems take this into account, and allow for or even enhance thinking of the kind we must do in the world we really inhabit?