This thread was inspired by a comment made on another thread which suggested that using logic to justify logic was circular. My first reaction to that comment was to appeal to empiricism, but the more I thought about it the less I thought that argument applies.
In one way the typical laws of logic are axiomatic. Appealing to their axiomatic nature seems sufficient for formal systems as we simply define what constitutes a valid line of reasoning in those systems. However, we often step outside the confines of our formal system and assume that the laws of logic apply to the universe as well. We can look at the universe and say, well, empirically the universe seems to obey some logical structure. However, I think this is insufficient as the laws of logic somehow seem more fundamental than even empiricism. I think a juxtaposition with the empirical sciences may help clarify what I mean.
Our scientific laws are subject to revision if we find empirical evidence contradicting those laws. While there is certainly some truth to quantum mechanics, it may turn out that it too needs revision. I don't feel like we can make similar claims to, for example, the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction. While a rabbit in the precambrian seems highly unlikely, the simulataneous existence of an immovable object and an unstoppable force is outright impossible, and I don't feel the need for any empirical evidence to make that claim. This is what I mean by the laws of logic seeming more fundamental than even empiricism.
I know that religious folks can appeal to God as the explanation for the logical structure of the universe. Is there a secular explanation for why logic is true as well that doesn't resort to some kind of circular reasoning? Or is there no secular explanation, and my belief in the logical structure of the universe is faith and intuition based? I'm having a hard time with this, so I'd be interested in your comments.
In one way the typical laws of logic are axiomatic. Appealing to their axiomatic nature seems sufficient for formal systems as we simply define what constitutes a valid line of reasoning in those systems. However, we often step outside the confines of our formal system and assume that the laws of logic apply to the universe as well. We can look at the universe and say, well, empirically the universe seems to obey some logical structure. However, I think this is insufficient as the laws of logic somehow seem more fundamental than even empiricism. I think a juxtaposition with the empirical sciences may help clarify what I mean.
Our scientific laws are subject to revision if we find empirical evidence contradicting those laws. While there is certainly some truth to quantum mechanics, it may turn out that it too needs revision. I don't feel like we can make similar claims to, for example, the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction. While a rabbit in the precambrian seems highly unlikely, the simulataneous existence of an immovable object and an unstoppable force is outright impossible, and I don't feel the need for any empirical evidence to make that claim. This is what I mean by the laws of logic seeming more fundamental than even empiricism.
I know that religious folks can appeal to God as the explanation for the logical structure of the universe. Is there a secular explanation for why logic is true as well that doesn't resort to some kind of circular reasoning? Or is there no secular explanation, and my belief in the logical structure of the universe is faith and intuition based? I'm having a hard time with this, so I'd be interested in your comments.