On 23/04/2017 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What basis do you have for claiming that the rules of inference
are of a higher level? They are perfectly easily understood as
deriving from experience -- i.e., from our experience of an
objective external world.
No because it uses induction to establish truth, the explanation
relies on logic for consistency,
No. Ultimately it relies on the assumed consistency of the external
world. Note, it does not rely on the assumed consistency of individual
experience, because that is evidently far from consistent. Logic is
nothing more than truth preserving rules of inference as derived from
the assumed consistency of the objective world. Where else do you get it
from? Magic??????
and unless you have an explanation of logic without logic, you have a
problem, as per physicalism logic must reduce to *matter* explanation,
and you can't use logic to justify itself, unless it is primary on
physics itself.
You use experience to justify the logic (rules of inference). They have
no other justification. Logic and mathematics, like physics, are useful
only in so far as they work.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
