3

Consider the statement ''The laws of classical logic compraised of Identity, Excluding middle and Non-contradiction'', In which type of knowledge the above statement comes under? Is it purely primitive or authority? I dont think the laws can be find out with an apeal to intution.

6
  • 2
    Not very clear... Are you assuming that the only two sources of knowledge are: either primitive (innate?) or authority? See e.g. The Sources of Knowledge. Apr 12, 2022 at 14:43
  • 2
    Those laws are analytic. Apr 12, 2022 at 15:01
  • Analytic in the sense of logic, right? Circular reasoning? Apr 12, 2022 at 15:17
  • 1
    Did we find these laws out or build them for our uses? Priest, Beall, Weir, and Field to name a few argue different reasons for adopting different logical laws than classical. One goal is we want to modify what is expressible in language. This language first perspective might be identified with Wittgenstein among others. Where knowledge has something to do with how humans in society follow rules. (this isn’t definitive, just one way to look at it that I think is supported)
    – J Kusin
    Apr 12, 2022 at 15:33
  • 1
    The justification of all inference rules is the fact that whenever you have true propositions P and Q in one statement followed by P in a separate statement the pattern is what makes the inference rule. If the premises are related & are true then the conclusion turns out 100 percent accurate with no exceptions. So if you want to say most knowledge is found inductively then this historically holds to be true. There is no authority that creates the famous three laws you refer to which are known as the three laws of logic. Objective knowledge is important in philosophy.
    – Logikal
    Apr 13, 2022 at 22:05

2 Answers 2

1

Logic is an innate mental faculty, so any scientific investigation of the laws of logic would have to rely on the available empirical data, which are essentially our own personal logical intuition, as well as what kind of reasoning is regarded as valid by human beings. The work of logicians since Aristotle also qualifies as empirical data.

Nobody has ever carried out any scientific investigation of the laws of logic and nobody seems interested doing it today (see note), but if we are ever to understand human logic, this is how we will have to do it.

It is unclear how useful that would be, but logic is crucial to our understanding of our environment and of the universe, so understanding logic seems a priori a potentially very useful idea.

Logic has mostly been investigated by philosophers, and they keep at it today. However, the method of investigation philosophers are using today and have been using, apparently after Kant, is essentially logical analysis, which obviously cannot possibly work. This explains to some extent why modern logic is a complete fiasco.

The method used by Aristotle and by most logicians in the Aristotelian tradition until the Scholastic seems to have been to rely on their own intuition and on what other logicians had said. This would have been a bit better than the analytical method and may explain why they at least made some progress.

which type of knowledge the above statement comes under? Is it purely primitive or authority?

Most likely, Aristotle's results were based on a mix of intuitions and on the consideration of arguments used by philosophers and politicians at the time.

I dont think the laws can be find out with an apeal to intution.

With an appeal to intuition, no, but by using one's intuition, yes.

Intuition is routinely used by all intellectual workers, including scientists. Most people don't even realise that they use their intuition. There is no fundamental differences between intuition about the possible laws of logic and intuition about the possibly laws of space-time, and Einstein himself put a premium on his own intuition.

Note - I am well aware that the cognitive sciences have long been working on the logical capacity of humans, this is not in dispute. What I say is missing is the science of the laws of logic.

Scientists naively believe that mathematicians have done the job and that mathematical logic is the expertise on the laws of human logic. This point is in evidence in their presentation of their results. Further, given the daunting complication of mathematical logic, most scientists probably also believe that they are incompetent to investigate the laws of logic. Accordingly, they conclude that there is nothing left for them to investigate in this respect. Instead, they work on whether humans have a logical capacity, with the assumption that the laws of logic are as described by mathematical logic.

2
2

''The laws of classical logic compraised of Identity, Excluding middle and Non-contradiction'', In which type of knowledge the above statement comes under? Is it purely primitive or authority? I dont think the laws can be find out with an apeal to intution. [sic]

Well, you come to the right place for an answer. This statement, true, false, or somewhere in between, is a statement investigated and contemplated by logicians. In fact, logicians themselves make arguments; and since logicians are generally involved in philosophy (mathematics, logic, and philosophy are highly interdependent in respect to Frege's notions that introduce formal systems), it's also fair to say that philosophers deal with the epistemology of logic, epistemology being the study of knowledge.

Now, if one comes from a naturalized epistemology, then one might approach the question from the perspective of a cognitive scientist, and ask questions about the brain and how it produces and uses the language to express logic and make decisions. (See Thinking, Fast and Slow, cognitive biases, and the Somatic Marker Hypothesis.) One might say that formal systems of logic are essentially the core that drives mathematical language, and therefore embrace constructivist ideas about logic. But certainly and traditionally, the study of informal logic, which goes back to the Ancient Greeks, has a tremendous body of knowledge that predates the 21st century. Ideas like Aristotelian syllogism are still mainstays of investigating logic, and for thousands of years, people put forth ideas that still have currency in the debate.

So, when one is discussing the Laws of Thought, the usual methods for determining truth apply: brute fact, intuition, rhetoric, and informal logic. In short? Philosophy!

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .