What is Reality? – Part3 (Logic and Physical Sense Experience)
A closer examination of the various aspects of socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality mentioned previously reveals the presence of two basic underlying factors: reliance upon the experience of the physical senses and the use of Aristotelian logic. This logic is used in an attempt to extend the range of physical sense-experience through speculation to areas where techniques are not yet available to enable actual physical sense experience. Essentially, therefore, the socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality mentioned may be considered to be based almost exclusively on physical sense-experience, either directly or indirectly.By its very nature, Aristotelian logic must necessarily view a unified whole as fragmentary parts, make observations about these parts and then attempt to link these observations, and thereby obtain an explanation of the whole. The accuracy of the explanation arrived at is dependent not only upon the accuracy of the observations, which are themselves limited in their accuracy due to physical sense limitations, but also upon whether or not all properties of the fragments have been observed. It may be impossible for us to ever know whether or not all properties of the fragments have been observed since it appears the more we widen the range of our physical sense-experience through scientific research, technology, etc., the more we realize how much there is yet unknown. Thus unless we can be 100% certain that we have accurately observed all the properties of all the fragmentary parts of a unified whole, and it seems unlikely that we can ever be, we can never really be certain that a conclusion based on the process of logical reasoning is accurate.
The past and the present illustrate the above-stated fact only too well. In many cases, our scientific experts deduced logically through the data available at that time, that certain chemicals and processes were harmless to humanity and assured us of their safety. Yet today, we are faced with the tragic effects of certain medically prescribed drugs which actually damaged the health of persons who used them, environmental pollution and other ugly monsters that humankind has created.
Comments (27)
Since Aristotle, the Western world has followed the logical principles of Aristotelian philosophy. This logic is based on the following three laws:
1) Law of Identity
A is A
2) Law of Contradiction
A is not non-A
3) Law of the Excluded Middle
A cannot be A and non-A
"Reality" can also be spun to satisfy certain desired outcomes.
Can there be more than one reality?
The grass is green.
The grass is not red.
Both of those are "realities" as we know them. Which one is correct?
This is a simple example of what I am getting at...because much more complicated narratives can be spun in carefully managed messages to be conveyed to a person/public for certain agendas/outcomes.
“The grass is green.
The grass is not red.
Both of those are "realities" as we know them. Which one is correct?”
They are both correct if you are referring to the same grass.
If you say “The grass is green”, then it follows, if you are speaking about the same grass, “The grass is not red”.
By Law 2, the law of contradiction, A is not non-A
where A is green and red is non-A
In other words, green is not red.
There is no contradiction.
Also, by Law 1, the law of Identity, A is A,
if A is green, then it must be green.
It cannot be any other colour, say red,for example.
Welcome back!
I agree with your view on the side effects of medically prescribed drugs.
I support your statement re the pharma companies.
In fact, I did a blog some time ago on the same topic:
“Yet today, we are faced with the tragic effects of certain medically prescribed drugs which actually damaged the health of persons who used them...”
Some of you may recall the “thalidomide tragedy”:
I agree...some women can be just as logical...if not more logical than men, and vice versa.
here is an exercise in logic:
A dog is an animal.
A cat is an animal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat.
Comments???
A dog is an animal.
A cat is an animal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat.
Comments???
The information required to complete and deal with the situation
is general.
I expect you or anyone else to identify it.
Yes, it is faulty.
The two premises:
A dog is an animal
A cat is an animal
are valid, aren't they?
So why is the conclusion:
Therefore, a dog is a cat
not valid?
The term "animal" does not necessarily refer to dogs alone
but also other creatures including cats, as you have mentioned.
A dog is an animal
A cat is an animal
are valid, aren't they?
So why is the conclusion:
Therefore, a dog is a cat
not valid?
The Englishman lives in the red house.
The Swede keeps dogs.
The Dane drinks tea.
The green house is just to the left of the white one.
The owner of the green house drinks coffee.
The Pall Mall smoker keeps birds.
The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhills.
The man in the center house drinks milk.
The Norwegian lives in the first house.
The Blend smoker has a neighbor who keeps cats.
The man who smokes Blue Masters drinks beer.
The man who keeps horses lives next to the Dunhill smoker.
The German smokes Prince.
The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
The Blend smoker has a neighbor who drinks water.
The question to be answered is: Who keeps fish?
This should keep you busy
Thanks for your suggestion.
Thanks for your input.
However, could you please elaborate on how you view "correlation"
In this particular instance?
I agree.
To achieve your expectations, you must face up to reality.
in CS Poetry Corner.
I wrote it especially for a black South African woman who attempted to change her skin colour through bleaching.
In a comment to her, I wrote:
"There is no need for you to even think of changing your God-given colour. You are beautiful as you are."
A prominent CS blogger, a former university professor, who has changed her pen name since then,
asked in her comment:
"BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL..YET, I AM NOT BLACK SO WHAT DOES THIS MAKE ME?"
My response was:
"if you expect an answer from me, my answer is "what YOU choose to make of yourself". Nowhere in my piece did I state or imply that the qualities I attributed to black people are UNIQUE to them ONLY. I made NO COMPARISON with people of other colours.
Please do not infer that I may have done so.
Here is the position in a deductive logic format:
Premise 1: Black is beautiful
Premise 2: There are other colours beside Black
Conclusion: Other colours are not beautiful
It is obvious that, based on the stated premises which are both true, such a conclusion is invalid.
I am sure that with your knowledge of philosophy, you can see the flaw in such an argument.
Here is a similar argument:
Premise 1: A dog is a four-legged animal
Premise 2: A cat is not a dog
Conclusion: A cat is not a four-legged animal
By the way, from my profile, you can see that I am of East Indian ethnicity. My skin colour may be classified as BROWN, rather than BLACK."
See:
Are you trying to show how some people base their conclusions on unsound principles?
Yes! Your last sentence got it right.
I mentioned the particular response to my poem as a demonstration.