How do you define logic and objectivity, and what are their limitations, if any?

[nschlaff]

Open ended question:

What is logic?

What is objectivity?

Do they have limitations?

To answer my own questions:

To me, logic is a tool for defining consistency or inconsistency towards a particular aim, goal or idea.

Objectivity is separating the object from the subject's perspective, which is impossible to completely achieve by subjective human beings since even the instruments we create to "objectively" perceive the world are inherently subjective because we create them in order to get specific results that we interpret in a particular way.

Logic has limitations in that it cannot perceive consistency in multiple systems that follow their own logic (i.e. faith, etc.). To me, logic does not apply to all realms of inquiry, simply because logic can lead to inconsistencies if attempting to realize multiple, equally viable goals that are sometimes contradictory.

For example emotions can be counter-logical in that they are instinctual, and based on biochemical reactions in the brain. These reactions add a flavor to life, but also an element of nonsensical, and even detrimental reactions to events and people we encounter. However, despite the debate over the utility of emotions, few people would dispute that emotions add a flavor to life not there in a purely rational world. In a way, emotions are a double-edged sword, providing gratification for achievement or happiness in relationships yet suffering in tragedy.

I guess my point is that logic does not apply to all realms of human experience, including the emotional realm or the spiritual realm. In my opinion, this is rightly so.

Just an opinion. Can't wait to hear yours.

 

[Architect]

In the limit logic fails, see Gödel's Incompleteness theorem for details. In regular life it works quite well. Not unlike the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical in that sense.

Otherwise I haven't thought about it much, though I enjoy studying Logic and especially the fallacies.

 

[A22]

In the limit logic fails, see Gödel's Incompleteness theorem for details.

From wikipedia:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

It does not mean logic "fails", only that it is either inconsistent or incomplete - you can't know the result of every sum, but you can sum infinitely and correctly, eternally seeking all the results but never getting to it.

That theory, or logic, may not be able to perfectly prove itself, but it's results can be checked IRL, which makes it valid. The quantum and classic mechanics comparison is a good one - the new one completes the older one, but doesn't invalidate it.

#OP

Yes there are limitations, both natural (see above) and humans - you can't, for instance, think of something you don't know. It may sound dumb, but try to think of how an alien would look like. You can't possibly imagine it without using something you already know - eyes, fluids, cells, etc...

We may not be omniscient, but our logic works.

 

[BigApplePi]

Off the cuff:

What is logic?

Formal ordering of cause and effect.

What is objectivity?

A view of reality recognized by others as valid.

Do they have limitations?

Examining cause and effect is limited; objectivity requires adequate observation and judgment and who's to judge if it's enough?

To me, logic is a tool for defining consistency or inconsistency towards a particular aim, goal or idea.

Objectivity is separating the object from the subject's perspective, which is impossible to completely achieve by subjective human beings since even the instruments we create to "objectively" perceive the world are inherently subjective because we create them in order to get specific results that we interpret in a particular way.

Logic has limitations in that it cannot perceive consistency in multiple systems that follow their own logic (i.e. faith, etc.). To me, logic does not apply to all realms of inquiry, simply because logic can lead to inconsistencies if attempting to realize multiple, equally viable goals that are sometimes contradictory.

As soon as you have multiple systems, are they to be taken as separate or as a "super-system"? If the former, they can't be compared as they have different premises.

For example emotions can be counter-logical in that they are instinctual, and based on biochemical reactions in the brain. These reactions add a flavor to life, but also an element of nonsensical, and even detrimental reactions to events and people we encounter. However, despite the debate over the utility of emotions, few people would dispute that emotions add a flavor to life not there in a purely rational world. In a way, emotions are a double-edged sword, providing gratification for achievement or happiness in relationships yet suffering in tragedy.

Logic could do if it could define the situation, but it has difficulties.

I guess my point is that logic does not apply to all realms of human experience, including the emotional realm or the spiritual realm. In my opinion, this is rightly so.

Just an opinion. Can't wait to hear yours.

I think it can be worked on if we narrow in on what we are talking about and look for probablistic answers.

 

[Da Blob]

the procedure of Logic encompasses a spectrum, from a problem solving method to a host of word games.

Objectivity is a restricted perspective of the universe. It is limited to the measurement of quantities on man-made scales, pretty much ignoring any qualities or unique phenomena that exist, such as personal experience/consciousness etc..

 

[Etheri]

Logic is a tool, much along the lines of maths. While we have serveral formal logic systems which work perfectly fine, the problem lies in applying them to reality. The limitation of logic is that it we can never perfectly apply it.

Objectivity is indeed perception based by definition, and thus inexistent. I must admit I often find myself thinking that in order to be objective, one cannot be emotionally conflicted. Truth is I don't think such a state exists. Also, one could argue against emotions having value and thus not having to be ruled out, and ofcourse there are more requirements than just 'emotionlessness' (is that even a word? )
The limitation in objectivity is that it simply does not exist. Objectivity itself is an (unreachable) limit.

To add a question closely related to yours : When is someone rational? Or, to push this in a specific direction, when is a decision rational?

 

[BigApplePi]

Objectivity is a restricted perspective of the universe. It is limited to the measurement of quantities on man-made scales, pretty much ignoring any qualities or unique phenomena that exist, such as personal experience/consciousness etc..

Personal experience? What about autobiography? Multiple biographies? Aren't those attempts to objectify experience to the reader? They may not capture the uniqueness, but we can try and identify.

Consciousness? Same thing. I tell you of what I am conscious. You attempt to identify. I reply in an attempt to set you straight. For an instant their is intimacy, then it is dropped and we move on.

 

[Da Blob]

Humans are at the least biological machines, mere objects. However, unlike the predictable objects we share this universe with, human behavior is not predictable to any great degree.

In an objective universe this is an impossibility. What if hydrogen atoms each had a personality, a name or was different in any way from other hydrogen atoms? How could the objective system still work? science, logic, objectivity is simply not geared to deal with the individual atom or the unique molecule, (the assumption is that such don't exist).

However, that basically is the very definition of the Subject as the unique individual, identifiable by name. Subjects can only be known by the qualities they exhibit, for the only quantity one exhibits is the quantity of one.

There are a number of ways to generate "objective' POVs of humans, but each of these depends on a reduction of an individual human to something simpler, something not quite human.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Logic is like grammar, it is a rule set for a language. It is the backbone of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Areas_of_inquiry

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Personal experience? What about autobiography? Multiple biographies? Aren't those attempts to objectify experience to the reader? They may not capture the uniqueness, but we can try and identify.

Consciousness? Same thing. I tell you of what I am conscious. You attempt to identify. I reply in an attempt to set you straight. For an instant their is intimacy, then it is dropped and we move on.

Exactly as you have said, they are merely attempts. To be 100% objective is probably impossible. Your consciousness is by definition going to be subjective. I can't prove you are conscious and you can't prove I am conscious.

Humans are at the least biological machines, mere objects. However, unlike the predictable objects we share this universe with, human behavior is not predictable to any great degree.

Humans are actually fairly predictable. They most likely will continue to need some form of sustenance. They will continue to advance their technologies, fight wars, and find new religions. There's always going to be some kind of government and taxes which will eventually become corrupt and the people will rebel. Crime will not go away. Our physical body is going to die eventually, sustaining an infinite effort to live seems absolutely ridiculous. Even if we had spiritual bodies they too would eventually run out of energy because I doubt even god would have an infinite supply of energy to sustain us all. Eh, I'm sure there's more but I don't feel like going on.

 

[Da Blob]

Humans are actually fairly predictable. They most likely will continue to need some form of sustenance. They will continue to advance their technologies, fight wars, and find new religions. There's always going to be some kind of government and taxes which will eventually become corrupt and the people will rebel. Crime will not go away. Our physical body is going to die eventually, sustaining an infinite effort to live seems absolutely ridiculous. Even if we had spiritual bodies they too would eventually run out of energy because I doubt even god would have an infinite supply of energy to sustain us all. Eh, I'm sure there's more but I don't feel like going on.

The statistical prediction of human behavior is limited to groups of nameless, faceless humans, a form of stereotyping that discounts the individuality that actually defines the human Subject.

Humans as biological machines are predictable in the same manner as machines.

However, Every human subject is host to a unique point of view, a consciousness not shared or predictable. We adapt to change unpredictably as individual conscious entities for unlike others, we choose how to adapt.

 

[BigApplePi]

There are a number of ways to generate "objective' POVs of humans, but each of these depends on a reduction of an individual human to something simpler, something not quite human.

Human beings are complex. We are not going to easily translate our perspectives, one to another. Suppose we simplify. How have I reacted to the taste of a ripe lemon? I tell you I went "braaack" after I sucked on a lemon. If you have had this experience, you know -exactly- closely how I felt. If you have not, you don't know what I'm talking about. So we continue to share experiences and the translation is there but far from perfect. If you have never tasted a lemon, what do you expect?

A poor novelist or poet is not going to objectify an experience to an illiterate. But a great novelist or poet is going to have deeper success with a broader audience.

Translation is the vehicle and is one of the six tools for understanding. It is a far from perfect instrument, but it's there, available for use.

 

[BigApplePi]

Humans are at the least biological machines, mere objects. However, unlike the predictable objects we share this universe with, human behavior is not predictable to any great degree.

Political scientists, politicians, psychologists, sociologists, economists, physicians all try very hard to predict human behavior on the macro scale. It's the micro scale they have trouble with ... and there are specialists in those areas too. If the accuracy is not very good, what do you expect? We are not creating human behavior, just describing it.

There is a hierarchy of human behaviors, one of the six tools for understanding. Each level is treated differently.