• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Does subjective logic exist?

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
I'll be brief as to promote discussion.

I had a pretty long 2-day debate with someone as to whether logic is subjective. I'll define subjective logic as that which you observe complex phenomena, take a reductive approach to establishing causality which is then used to induce logical conclusions through inference. Is there such a thing as subjective logic? That is, one can reason in a logical manner based on empirical evidence they have observed which makes their logic personalised. That is not to say that the logic is subject to the person's consciousness but they have a piece of information which others do not, or rather they have induced a better explanatory conclusion but on incorrect assumptions.

Maybe I should rephrase this is: Logic used as a tool can be subjective and valid, given the empirical parameters of the individual. This can differ from another person's approach making it personalised.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 5:31 PM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
386
-->
Location
Narnia
Ideally logic is a set of rules. People can change those rules, but if you ask me it ceases to be simply logic at that point. They can implement logic to change those rules like "I'm not going to drive because I'm taking the bus with a friend."

Context is everything, so says cultural constructivism. Not everyone absorbs or looks at the same things even if they are sitting right next to each other. If your concern is that they come to correct/accurate conclusions, then I would have to say yes, though in order for it to be true logic, bias would have to be removed from it.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,093
-->
If something is only true subjectively does it matter? If we're in the desert and I see an oasis but you don't because it isn't there, I'm just hallucinating from heatstroke, my observation may be no less valid than yours but it doesn't change our predicament.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 5:31 PM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
386
-->
Location
Narnia
If something is only true subjectively does it matter? If we're in the desert and I see an oasis but you don't because it isn't there, I'm just hallucinating from heatstroke, my observation may be no less valid than yours but it doesn't change our predicament.
I would say in that situation, yes. The other person determines you've outlived your use, kills and eats you right there.
 

The Grey Man

Denken ist schwer
Local time
Today 6:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
700
-->
Location
Canada
It is difficult, if not impossible, to divorce logic from the subject of logic, or the person making the judgments, if these judgments are understood to represent or 'point to' some truth as its 'root' (so abstract is logic in general that it's almost impossible to talk about it without using a plethora of metaphors).

Logic, by itself, says no more than that A = A. What "A" is or what it means for a thing to "=" another thing is of absolutely no importance to the logician insofar as he remains a logician; nor is it of any importance to the mathematician so long as his work is pure, i.e., so long as it finds no application in theoretical physics or one of the myriad special sciences. As Hilbert said, "it must be possible to replace "point, line, and plane" with "table, chair, and beer mug,"" and vice versa. If a proposition is to express some truth, there must be someone who is capable of understanding it, which is to say that it must be embedded within some language, be it artificial or colloquial.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,093
-->
My blood is salty, especially since I'm dehydrated so congratulations you die from dehydration faster.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:31 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,120
-->
Logic, by itself, says no more than that A = A.

Animekitty's subjectivity = Animekitty's subjectivity

AK(subjective)=Radius^cubed*time

 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
Ideally logic is a set of rules. People can change those rules, but if you ask me it ceases to be simply logic at that point. They can implement logic to change those rules like "I'm not going to drive because I'm taking the bus with a friend."

Context is everything, so says cultural constructivism. Not everyone absorbs or looks at the same things even if they are sitting right next to each other. If your concern is that they come to correct/accurate conclusions, then I would have to say yes, though in order for it to be true logic, bias would have to be removed from it.

I wouldn't say this is bias in the sense that it's an unsubstantiated claim. If I observe a ball rolling down a hill a million times (This is the sum total amount of balls I've seen rolled down a hill)and infer through logical induction that every ball roll down hills, and you observed independently of I that there was a moment in which it didn't, then we'd have two subjective logical processes. We use informal logic relating to the use of language, since language is not a atomic while observations and expressions are infinite there is no perfectly reducible form. You could define logic as that of logical/mathematical operators expressing fundamental operators (Conjunction, Disjunction, Element, Set, Implies, Equals, Not-Equal, All/Exists etc) but I'd put that in the scope of mathematical logic. Since mathematics is pure abstraction it's exact, there can be no subjectivity pertaining to it. Logic has many sub-fields, I think the use of language in particular and the nature of experience combined with logical induction being a valid way to call a conclusion "logical" makes subjective logic frequent.

It goes to say what we mean by subjective logic when we think of the non-contradiction principle: It is either logical or illogical. The person employing his own subjective logic should be the logic that exists in the world, right? Though, since we don't understanding causality and causality is often a posteori in which we can't understand all variables that cause a particular outcome (And we couldn't even simulate the variable output if we the initial conditions, i.e chaos theory), then subjective logic is a consequence of our lack of omniscience and taking reductionist approach to multi-variate solutions.

Sure, ideally we want logic to be objective. Society doesn't rely on subjective logic. However, the individual does rely on subjective logic when he had made an observation about one time that the ball did not roll down the hill. Likewise, the one that hadn't observed this (me), employs the observations he's used to logically induce the conclusion of a ball rolling down the hill. The state of logic in its idyllic form, separate from the machinations of man is one we try to approach but never manifest in words. You could parallel truth to the theory of forms, in which logic shines the light towards truth but inevitably we are still aware of the darkness.

For me, reality is probabilistic and so is logic to that degree. No entity (in my belief) can confirm for any of us why a certain theory behaves the way it does. We had Newtonian physics which was superseded by Relativity, sure newton's law's of motions are easier than working them out using relativity and the approximation is virtually exact. Who's to say QM or relativity is superseded by another idea? String theory, Bohmian mechanics? We supersede ideas of this nature because they explain more phenomena in an understandable fashion, yet we're always plagued by expanding our knowledge from axiomatic truths to logical theories. Dark energy is an inference from the universe expanding and that light cannot optically observe this. Phantom energy is an inference due to the fact that galaxies are separating at an exponential rate, suggesting that the repulsive force of dark energy is not enough to explain the increase in speed of the expansion.

Lastly, I think most of our logical processes are not inferred using objective measurements. If you wish to call that illogical you may do so. When I discuss an idea with you, I cannot present to you a situation precisely illustrating the empirical evidence I've acquired which infer a different logical solution to your own. The logic you've accrued from your experience is different from my own, yet in the context of the individual it is logical unless they gather more evidence. Sometimes this is impossible to do.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
If something is only true subjectively does it matter? If we're in the desert and I see an oasis but you don't because it isn't there, I'm just hallucinating from heatstroke, my observation may be no less valid than yours but it doesn't change our predicament.

It's not subjective in the sense I have my own internal logical rules that uniquely apply to my experience of reality. It is the subject of my existence has observed phenomena, which can't be replicated in situ which would give my logic a moniker of subjective since I cannot show this to you, yet it would be a valid variable to account in my own process.
The hallucination argument could apply to anything, I claim solipsism to escape determinism in the world.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
902
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Logic has rules. You probably could invent some kind of new logic, but it would have to be specifically defined. Are there irrational ways to come to correct conclusions. Obviously yes. However if you start with the same axiom you define in identical manner than the rules of logic using the same logic are same. However if there is subjective logic then the rules of logic do not apply then it begs the question why even call it logic. Now if the definition of the axiom differs or the reasoning behind the definition of the axiom is different than perhaps there is some leeway to how one might come to different conclusion.

Bottom line is if you are using logic the rules of such logic must be defined. Surely you can reason in different ways or even come to conclusions about something in irrational way. There is however no reason to call it logic then, but instead just call it subjective reasoning as reasoning can provide a more loose program.

For example why someone might like color blue. There are plenty people who like this color. So there are also plenty people who do not. Maybe the reasoning behind liking a particular color the most is identical, but people might have a different starting point(axiom) a starting point from which such sentiment is generated. It could be entirely subjective and based both on personality, vision, experiences, instinct, or even plain arbitrary decision.
 

Daddy

Evil Jew
Local time
Today 6:31 PM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
139
-->
I don't think any of this is really subjective logic though, if the intent and focus is on the objective. Even if you could make a case for logic not being inherent to reality, modeling it as best you can with logic doesn`t truly make it subjective.

Subjective logic makes subjective evaluations in my opinion. So say you meet someone on the street, say a homeless person begging for money. Subjective logic judges this person in some way. So somebody might decide the homeless person is too lazy to work. Or that they are defective or mentally ill in some way or just a weak person. And then they can further make logical associations/decisions about that person based on those predispositions. So maybe they then also decide somebody else needs to take care of them or run their lives or something of that nature.

And this kind of subjective logic can't exactly be proven or disproven, since it's really an interpretative judgement. Though that's not to say you couldnt make things more objective with science, but I think the psyche is always up for interpretation. And I think interpretation is inherently subjective, though absolutely necessary to fill our lives with meaning.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,093
-->
The hallucination argument could apply to anything, I claim solipsism to escape determinism in the world.
That's Epistemological Skepticism, in other words you're saying "la la la I can't hear you because I don't want to".

If you're going to act like a petulant child I'll treat you like one.

Being stupid isn't the same as being wrong, it's entirely possible for an intelligent person to make an honest mistake and thus end up with a wrong answer, mistakes happen, misunderstandings happen, you can do everything right and sometimes reality's just going to fuck with you (i.e. you pen doesn't lay down any ink when you write a decimal point). Being stupid is getting the wrong answer and sticking to it, being too stubborn to admit that you might be wrong, an intelligent person learns from their mistakes, the idiot doubles down on them.

Logic is just like Math, it's axiomatic, it's comprised of rules, if you and I both calculate 5+4 and we get different answers I'm going to check my answer because the only thing I hate more than being wrong is if someone else figures out my mistake before I do, I WANT to find that mistake, I'm going to try things like 2+4+3 because I know 2+3 is 5 so 5+4 must be the same. Meanwhile you're insisting that 5+4=10, not because it does but rather because for some ineffable reason that only makes sense to you (the fact that you can't communicate how you got your answer is itself telling us you made a mistake) you somehow got 10 and you're not willing to entertain the possibility that you might have made a mistake, not because you think you're infallible, you know you aren't, but because you're too stupid to give up.

Of course we're not talking about mathematics we're probably talking about philosophy in which case "logic" doesn't really apply, logic isn't subjective, there's no my logic or your logic the rules of logic apply to everyone, that's what makes it logic, which is a perfect case-in-point example because if your logic is subjective then it's not logic is it?

You haven't found a logic that succeeds logic itself, you're just an idiot.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
The hallucination argument could apply to anything, I claim solipsism to escape determinism in the world.
That's Epistemological Skepticism, in other words you're saying "la la la I can't hear you because I don't want to".

If you're going to act like a petulant child I'll treat you like one.

I don't think you realised I was joking. Wow.
Being stupid isn't the same as being wrong, it's entirely possible for an intelligent person to make an honest mistake and thus end up with a wrong answer, mistakes happen, misunderstandings happen, you can do everything right and sometimes reality's just going to fuck with you (i.e. you pen doesn't lay down any ink when you write a decimal point). Being stupid is getting the wrong answer and sticking to it, being too stubborn to admit that you might be wrong, an intelligent person learns from their mistakes, the idiot doubles down on them.

Logic is just like Math, it's axiomatic, it's comprised of rules, if you and I both calculate 5+4 and we get different answers I'm going to check my answer because the only thing I hate more than being wrong is if someone else figures out my mistake before I do, I WANT to find that mistake, I'm going to try things like 2+4+3 because I know 2+3 is 5 so 5+4 must be the same. Meanwhile you're insisting that 5+4=10, not because it does but rather because for some ineffable reason that only makes sense to you (the fact that you can't communicate how you got your answer is itself telling us you made a mistake) you somehow got 10 and you're not willing to entertain the possibility that you might have made a mistake, not because you think you're infallible, you know you aren't, but because you're too stupid to give up.

Of course we're not talking about mathematics we're probably talking about philosophy in which case "logic" doesn't really apply, logic isn't subjective, there's no my logic or your logic the rules of logic apply to everyone, that's what makes it logic, which is a perfect case-in-point example because if your logic is subjective then it's not logic is it?

You haven't found a logic that succeeds logic itself, you're just an idiot.

Cog, you think you've made a point but you're not addressing the actual process. Most of what we know logic to be is inductions based on axioms. What was previously known as axiomatic was flipped on it's head. Of course math can be axiomatic since it's pure abstraction, it doesn't exist in reality. Even translating mathematics into informal logic (the logic i've specified, yet people use mathematical operators to prove their point.) In all but abstract systems like mathematics it is impossible to rely solely on axiomatic truths. All we know is primarily conclusions, which are presupposed to be true given they have been reasoned through logical induction. In other words, we consider these conclusions to be logical, though given the nature of variability and how we understand multi-variate factors that influence phenomena and we're limited to our perceptual abilities, most of what we know is predicated on our limited ability to observe variables and induce causality. Newton's equations were right for the wrong reasons, QM Theory is proving to be more accurate than General Relativity. Who's to say the purported cornerstones of these theories is not replaced in the near future?

Outside of pure abstractions, people think they're being logical but they cannot know they are. They can only induce causality and try to replicate it. Logic is testable, but in some scenarios observed logical rules cannot be tested which would denote it as objective: Think about testing solar eclipses to observe light bending around a stellar body: There is only a certain period of time to which we can observe this phenomena, and I for one cannot replicate it in situ. Eternal axioms are few and far between, Objective logic can be proven for an individual yet the other person is not given a time-frame to test the rule set himself. Since we induce logical conclusions from observations, it's also entirely possible that one used separate logical rules to induce the same conclusion. It's not simply the non-contradiction principle where one is right and one is correct: One can be partially correct, both can be incorrect, one could very unlikely be entirely correct, but the reality is that our ability to be objective and understand what is "truly" logical is limited, and I say most of what we know and logically reason with is based on subjective perception.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
The difference I'm fundamentally seeing is:
-I'm expressing how logical processes can infer an incomplete conclusion.
-You're telling me that logic (as a rule set) is not subjective. This is true. Though, informal logic is not expressed using a strict rule set.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
not because it does but rather because for some ineffable reason that only makes sense to you (the fact that you can't communicate how you got your answer is itself telling us you made a mistake) you somehow got 10 and you're not willing to entertain the possibility that you might have made a mistake, not because you think you're infallible, you know you aren't, but because you're too stupid to give up.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
Logical inferences is what we know to be logic. Practically everything you think of is an abstraction or a logic inference of some sort. When is the last time we ever had a discussion about the addition of numbers?

Are you referring to axioms of this nature which are essentially formal assumptions?
1583943321569.png


How about these?

1583943395380.png


Or how about this?

1583943441372.png


Or how about A=B?

Which one are you discussing? the axiomatic assumptions that are logical but ultimately assumptions, to which other theories can make their own assumptions which appear logical but may be correct in the wrong way, or incorrect in the right way. Or completely wrong themselves. How are we to know what is the logical process of the universe when we exist in a model-state of reality?

I'm not even taking a solipsistic approach saying that everything is everything, I'm just saying that what you consider to be objective, true and logical is probabilistic. So since logic can be probabilistic there is a means to which people formulate their own rules which work, or do not work inside a specific case. They may work but not because of the causality we inferred. We are not omniscient, this is all I'm saying. If we were omniscient a logical rule set would be irrefutable and not subjective to the perceptible scope of the problem. As I said above, Newton's theories of motions are so exact that they predicted the practical application of motion. Who's to say we aren't reaching correct conclusions on faulty logic? How are we to determine what is illogical and logical if we've been deceived so often in the past?
 

The Grey Man

Denken ist schwer
Local time
Today 6:31 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
700
-->
Location
Canada
I don't think my first post answered your question directly.

Are you asking if it is possible for an argument to be strictly logically, yet unsound? If so, the answer is indubitably yes. Axioms are assumptions, yes, but they are not logical, precisely because they are assumptions. Logic has nothing to do with the selection of axioms, but inheres solely in tautological inferences from those axioms. A logically valid inference from false premises is not necessarily true, nor do true axioms guarantee true conclusions if the reasoning is fallacious; and, as I said before, the meaning of the propositions depends upon their interpretation.
 

Teax

huh?
Local time
Tomorrow 12:31 AM
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
392
-->
Location
in orbit of a friendly star <3
I'll define subjective logic as that which you observe complex phenomena, take a reductive approach to establishing causality which is then used to induce logical conclusions through inference. Is there such a thing as subjective logic? That is, one can reason in a logical manner based on empirical evidence they have observed which makes their logic personalised.
Yes. From my experience, a "logic", what we tend to understand as "non self contradictory set of rules" is not inherent in people (even those who call themselves "INTP"). Inherently, all people start out with personal logic constructed from, near as I have figured, generalizations of empirical observation. Over time and with training people have varying degrees of success weeding out or refining overgeneralized rules.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Tomorrow 12:31 AM
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
-->
Objective reasoning does not exist insofar there needs to be a subjective agent doing the reasoning.
However, if subjective reasoners come to a sameish, or even identical conclusion based upon different methods, it stands to reason that objective truths outside of the observer can be approached.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:31 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,029
-->
to opening, because human perception , experience and brain is subjective and biased flawed
rather than logic (internal or external) and rationalism itself,

so subjective logic doesnt exist but brain peception biological bias does

logic is simply tool prove or disprove, possible or impossible, true or false, equal or unequal.

for example the statement i work very hard and is tired and exhuasted

can you objectively define working hard and tired, your boss and you disagree on how hard you work

i observe something and conclude y, why you observe the same thing and conclude x
 
Top Bottom