Martyrs of Thought

[Mutakalim]

Reasoning is a mental process or the act of using our innate cognitive faculty (reason) to drive a conclusion from certain premise

 

The above-quoted statement is the definition that you have provided for the word "reasoning". Very well. Your definition is sufficient, but I will quote the dictionary defintion just so as to eliminate any possible ambiguites. Reasoning is defined as follows:

 

the use of

REASON

; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of

REASON

Merriam Webster Dictionary

 

1.To use the faculty of reason; think logically. 2.To talk or argue logically and persuasively.

Dictionary.com

 

You wrote:

 

innate cognitive faculty (reason)

 

What is our innate congnitive faculty? You have the word "reason" in brackets, so our innate cognitive faculty is the use of "reason". This is in accordance with the defintion in lexicons. But what is "reason" itself? Here is yet another definiton:

 

Reason is

the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly RATIONAL ways

Merriam Webster

 

The capacity for LOGICAL, RATIONAL, and ANALYTIC thought

Dictionary.com

 

If someone is reasoning, then he/she is using his/her "innate cognitive faculty" which is reason. A person employs reason if, and only if, the person thinks in a logical and rational way. What does it mean to think in a logical or orderly rational way? Well, logic, a science of the principles of "reasoning", among other things, describes when a person is thinking in a logical and rational way. If you say that Xaskul is employing reason, then you are saying that he is being "rational and logical". Being rational and logical is, simply put, acting in accordance with "Reason" or "logic".

 

It looks like you equating “logic†with standard in one sentence and in the same breath you using “logic†with faculty (ability or human capacity to think) - all in one paragraph!!!! Is logic a method/science to weigh how we reason or is it the act (reasoning) itself?

 

The process of reasoning cannot occur without the use of "our innate cognitive faculty", which is reason, and employing "reason" is thinking in a logical way (defintion). In this sense "Reason" is interchangeable with logic. You cannot "reason" about anything unless you use "your innate cognitive faculty" which is the advancing of rational thoughts. The only way of advancing rational thoughts is by the employment of the principles of logic.

 

Stating that reasoning is the use of reason is circular, and does nothing to explain what is the process of reasoning unless you understand what is "reason" (noun). In addition, camaflouging the word "reasoning" with "cognitive innate faculty" is not helpful unless it is clear what you mean by cognitive innate faculty. However, it is clear that you mean "reason" when you talk about our "cognitive innate faculty"; afterall, you did put "reason" in brackets after the said phrase. Your definition amounts to: reasoning is the use of reason, or reasoning is the use of our innate cognitive faculty. This begs the question because what we are querying about is the nature of this so called innate cognitve faculty. This we know to be reason, which is thinking in a logical and rational way. To think in a logical or rational way is to think in accordance with logic (its principles and consequences).

 

Aristotle is credited of being the one who invented the logic as a method of rigorous analysis of facts.

 

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, Aristotle did not invent the principles of logic. Logic is the science of the principles of reasoning, and Aristotle did not invent the principles of reasoning (e.g. Principle of Non contradiction). Perhaps you can say that Aristotle invented this "science" but he did not, obviously, invent the principles underlying this science. He is, no doubt, credited with inventing the "science of logic", which is the rigorous study of logic, but he did not invent the pillars of logic(principles of reasoning). He merely formalized the principles of reasoning. Many biologists (scientists) credit Anixmander, the ancient greek biologist, for the formalization of biology. Biology is the science of living organisms, their structures etc. Anixmander did not invent living things, which are the the subject matter of biology; he merely invented the "science of living things", which is studying the structure, function, and growth of living things, but he did not invent the actual living organisms. In like manner, Aristotle did not invent the principles of reasoning (logic is the science of the principles of reasoning), rather he just discovered them. Anyone else could have discovered the science of living things (biology) and the science of the principles of reasoning(logic), but no one can invent them.

 

pre-Aristotle layman use their common sense to make sense of their surroundings

 

What is "common sense"? Is it perhaps the "innate cognitive faculty" which humans possess? You wrote that it was "reason", and I am equating "reason" with the employment of the principles of logic.

 

Try to reason and rationalize without using the principles of logic. Give me any example in which you use reason, and I will show you that you are employing the principles of logic . If humans were able to "reason" without using logic, then they would be able to think "illogically" (not employing logic). This is preposterous!

 

If this standard (logic not reasoning as a mental process that all human beings are known to possess) is the yard stick in which all claims or propositions are measured against then that means truth is relative to some standard or convention or point-of-view formulized by Aristotle

 

This would be true if Aristotle invented the principles of logic; however, it is contradictory to assume that triangle had four sides before Aristotle, because three sides and a triangle are, by virtue of the "principle of identity" (A is A) equivalent. The term "three angles" is logically equivalent to Triangle just like four sides is equivalent to square. Therefore, Aristotle only invented the "science of studying the principles of logic" but not the principles of logic themselves.

 

It absolutely nonsensical to say that you can use reason without using logic. I still find it hard to believe that you actually think that it is possible to reason and to rationalize without employing logic by hook or crook.

 

 

Because I reason and mine encountered these “impregnable walls

 

As the New Yorker Magazine occasional column has it, "Block that metaphor!"

 

P.S. And I thought that Ibn Taymiyyah was ridiculously obstinate and naive. Here you are telling me that reasoning is independent of logic. Walillaahi fii khalqihii shu'uun!

 

With Salaams

PK

[STOIC]

As a young man when i want to descibe something as false i have to admit that a clear and definite argument has led me to conclude that it does not exist!.The inability to understand something does exist and the knowledge that lead me to beleive it doesn't exist are two different thing!.When i was in Africa if someone told me that half of the Americans are christians, I will be wondering as to how it is so,but at the same time i don't have the prove to deny this claim-This will be inability to understand.If i was to refute the messenger claim on the ground that i have never heard of such claim , all sensible people in this forum will consider me a unenlightened!.Your argument will be if i am unable to understand something, i am not entitled to deny its existance!. In the same way lets look at a religious example where we are told that the paradise and hell exist.Since no one has came back and reported to us that this things exist, we will wonder as to how it does exist!.When you deny the existance of the hell and paradise, you are just like when i denied back in Africa that half of the Americans are christians, because you will be denying this on the basis of what has been observed. ***This all shows us that ones inability to understand something is no argument for its being false!***.

[Baashi]

Mutakalim,

It’s true that ordinary people use imprecise language more often than the philosophers. Language to be useful, I’ve always maintained, debaters must share a consensus on the definitions of terms. The dictionary defined the terms in question vaguely. I have to accept it as our reference point, however. In light of the established definitions of these two terms, feel free to correct me here, reasoning is synonymous to logic Noh? and the two are interchangeable terms right? Excellent!

 

Now I was working under the impression that the two terms were different in one fundamental way. Reasoning can be valid or invalid! Is the same true with logic? According to what standards do reasoning become valid or invalid? Is the principle of reasoning learned knowledge or these principles can simply be known through intuition? I take there are “logical†rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments? Are these rules (all) agreed (universally)?

 

Nin baa waxa laga hayaa: hashu maankay gadayee ma masaarbey laqday! Hawl uu xirfad badan u lahaa buu garan waayey waxa ka qaldan iyo si xaal yahay. Sidoo kale haweeneey reer miyi ah baa waxa iyanna laga hayaa: Ilaahii sac madoobe caanihiisa cadeeyayow waa mahada. Iyadu lo’da yey aad u badisay. Awood weyn oo ka shisheysa oo aysan sharixi karin oo hawlahaan maamula bey garatay in ay jirto. Mahada awoodaa bey la beegsatay oo ay ku magac qabsatay.

[Mutakalim]

In light of the established definitions of these two terms, feel free to correct me here, reasoning is synonymous to logic Noh? and the two are interchangeable terms right? Excellent!

 

To be precise, I would not say that reasoning is synonymous with logic, but I would say that logic is a necessary condition for reasoning. You may perchance, in a sense, equate "reason" (noun) with "logic" as our "innate cognitive faculty". Reasoning is the process itself and reason or logic is the tool.

 

Reasoning can be valid or invalid! Is the same true with logic? Is there such thing as invalid logic? Why? I take there are “logical†rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments? Are these all agreed (universally)?

 

Well, it is not the process itself (reasoning) that can be valid or invalid, rather it is the product of this process that can be labelled as such. An argument (composed of premises and a conclusion) is the product of reasoning, and it is only arguments that be described as valid or invalid. I do not know what it means to say that "reasoning is valid or invalid", because it is not reasoning itself that is susceptible of validity and invalidity, but the result (i.e. argument) that is valid or invalid. That is to say, if someone says that the reasoning of Naaleeye is invalid, then what they are saying is that his argument is invalid. One cannot say that a given reasoning is invalid in and of itself without scrutinizing the argument.

 

The concepts of validity and invalidity are strictly mathematical because such concepts apply to the form and not the content of the arguments. Moreover, when it is said that an argument is valid, it means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, if you accept the premises as true, then you must, of necessity, accept the conclusion as true. With valid arguments, you cannot accept the premises and reject the conclusion.

 

P1. All humans are birds

P2. Baashi is a Human

C. Therefore, Baashi is a bird [Example 1]

 

The argument above is an instance of a valid argument. It is important to understand that validity is a concept peculiar to deductive arguments. If you accept P1 and P2, then you cannot deny the truth of the conclusion, because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; this much is obvious. The argument is valid even though the conclusion is false.

 

P1. Calgary is in Canada

P2. Toronto is in Canada

C. Therefore, Ottawa is in Canada [Example 2]

 

Though the conclusion of example 2 is true, the argument is, nonetheless, invalid. It is of utmost importance that you do not confuse soundness with validity. This is a rudimentary concept, which, needlesss to say, all students understand.

 

The validity of an argument is mathematical, thusly universal. In mathematical langugage, the validity or invalidity of an argument can be demonstrated through axioms and inference rules. The argument in example 1 is valid, but is unsound. Soundness and Validity are two quite distinct concepts.

 

I think we have established that it is impossible to engage in reasoning without employing logic; nay, it is impossible to reason without being logical. One cannot engage in reasoning if one is not orderly rational and logical. In additon, logical principles and rules are mathematical as they are part of mathematics, and, as a result, objective.

 

P.S. I will not respond to that anecdotic piece lest I become the hostage of my tongue(or rather my keyboard).

 

With Salaams

S.

[STOIC]

I agree with you Mutakallam on that explanation!. A valid argument is one in which there is no possible way for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false.The truth of the premise of a valid argument gurantees the truth of the conclusion.A valid argument can have

1. false premise and true conclusion

2. false premise and a false conclusion

3. True premise and a true conclusion

Lets look at this example,

All cars are green in color, and Isuzu is a car.So all Isuzu are green in color.

The above argument is true despite the fact of a false premise!.

sound arguments are valid arguments all of whose premise are true.An argument becames invalid when you deny the antecedent( i usually confuse this with modus ponen)and when you affirm the consequent.

Mutakallam if you don't mind could you please clarify for me the difference between the above invalid arguments i have mentioned and Modus pollen and Modus Tollen.I usually get them confused sometimes and usally commit fallacy!

[Pacifist]

HOw did i miss this thread be back to give my cents

[Mutakalim]

All cars are green in color, and Isuzu is a car.So all Isuzu are green in color.

The above argument is true despite the fact of a false premise!.

 

Your argument is in the form of a simple syllogims.

 

P1: All cars are green

P2: Isuzu is a car

C: Therefore, Isuzu is green

 

Now this argument is valid because you are compelled to accept the conclusion if you accept P1 and P2. It is not, however, a "true" argument but a valid one. Truth is a property of statments and propositions and not of arguments. It would be incorrect to say that an argument is "true" or "false", arguments are only valid/invalid or sound/unsound. Equally important is the fact that this argument is unsound ; an argument is unsound if one or more of its premises is false. In this case, P1 is clearly false as all cars are not green.

 

An argument becames invalid when you deny the antecedent( i usually confuse this with modus ponen)and when you affirm the consequent.

 

Yes. Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are both invalid methods of inference, and as such errors in reasoning (fallacies). In order to reason correctly, we can either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. This is in essence the meaning of modus ponens (to affirm the antecedent) and modus tollens (to deny the consequent). Modus ponens and Modus tollens are valid inferences; fallacies occur when you "deny" instead of affirm the antecedent, and affirm instead of deny the consequent.

 

For example, Oxygen is a necessary (but not, sufficient) condition of combustion, which means that unless there is oxygen, combustion cannot occur, but does not mean, that if there is oxygen, then combustion will occur. So, the existence of oxygen is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of combustion.

 

On the other hand take the following example: being decapitated is a sufficient condition of death, but it is not a necessary condition of death. Which is to say, although it is true that if a person is decapitated he will die, it is not true that only if he is decaptitated, will a person die. There are other causes of death than decapitation. Thusly, although decapitation is a sufficient condition for death, it is not a necessary condition for death.

 

As you can see, the notion of sufficient and necessary conditions parallels the notions of modus ponens and modus tollens, respectively.

 

Finally, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is just the confusion of a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, while the fallacy of denying the antecedent is just the confusion of a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.

 

With Salaams

S.

[Baashi]

^I see that you set aside the most crucial question and went on to demonstrate your favored example for one more time! Impressive!

 

Stay with me Mutakalim and keep your eyes on the ball friend. We’re getting somewhere with this and hopefully we may even agree on the validity of having faith in unseen Omniscient, Almighty, and Creator whose attributes and whose beginning is beyond the narrowly constructed and vaguely defined logic conceived by infallible men is infact valid an acceptable position to take.

 

I’m not interested in the details of how archaic Greco-Roman terminology is defined within philosophy discipline. I’m interested in how philosophy with its impressive logic can explain several difficult questions: what can we know? (knowledge), what is there (metaphysics), why should we obey? (politics), what shoul we do?(ethics), what can we believe? (religion), what will become of us after death (metaphysics), etc.

 

Given the universality of reason (all human beings have the capacity to perform abstract thought) and the principles of reason (are known and hence can be employed to decide which thought is valid and which in not), how do you Mutakalim explain the existence of the many schools of thought within philosophy community? Who is right and who is wrong? What standard (definitive and known) can one use to sieve the speculations and opinions of these thinkers?

 

Our discussion is going to that direction, I hope. What I’m doing here is to get you agree, with minimum understanding, on the terms used in this discussion. It will be quite a ride, assuming you’re willing to come along, and there will be pumps along the way but we’ll reach the finish line Allah willing. Sure! there will be some detractors throwing in unsolicited help but keeping an eye on the ball is sufficient to keep the discussion going to that direction.

 

Back to the topic! You were saying that the product of reason (not reasoning) can be valid or invalid. You also said that reason is a term interchangeable with logic. Very well! Moving on...I say, for instance, if X = A, Y = B then X = Y. Is my reasoning correct here and by reasoning, I mean the derivation (or calculation, or even say proof) that I performed there. Or can one characterize my mistake as error in reasoning. OK forget all of that as there are semantics that can be exploited. Let me turn to reason = logic concept. For the sake of the discussion, I accepted that. Let me ask you this question:

 

How your view (the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences) in which reason is narrowly reduced to can account the various views on the nature of reason that are not compatible with one another (many thinkers have pondered reason and come up different definisions).

 

Let me give you three definitions(Source: free-definition webside):

 

“General: reason (from Latin ratio, by way of French raison) is the faculty by means of which or the process through which human beings perform thought, especially abstract thought.â€

 

“Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are intuitively apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes or "reasons" that things exist or happen. Empiricists, of course, deny the existence of such a facultyâ€.

 

“For Immanuel Kant, reason (Vernunft in Kant's German language) is the power of synthesizing into unity, by means of comprehensive principles, the concepts provided by the intellect (Verstand). The reason which gives a priori principles Kant calls "Pure Reason" (as in his The Critique of Pure Reason), as distinguished from the "Practical Reason" which is specially concerned with the performance of particular actionsâ€.

 

“In theology, reason, as distinguished from faith, is the human intelligence exercised upon religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different religion and periods of thought: on the whole, modern Christianity, tends to allow to reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of theologyâ€.

 

There you have it! Different thinkers weighing one subject. Different conceptions on the very nature of reason. It’s clear that people find that they disagree as to the truth of some of these assertions.

 

Keep an eye on the ball sxb, we’re shooting for the big picture!

[Pujah]

Interesting thread, though I cannot repeat myself that many times

 

keep it up guys

[Legend of Zu]

How can you debate without agreeing upon the definitions and terms??? it beats me!!!

 

cheers