Evolution of Logic

[natewood3]

I have been running into alot of people that say the laws of logic simply evolved into what they are now. They make statements such as:

"likewise there aren't necessarily set "laws" of logic. our sense of logic is just derived from what has worked - axioms that have led to successful testable predictions."

Anyone know of any resources that would refute this evolution of logic idea? I have not seen anyone speak of it really, so I was wondering if anyone else has been involved in a discussion with other people who have used this type of argument. I have not seen Bahnsen or any other presuppositionalist deal with this...

 

[Scott]

I believe that Bahnsen essentially said that if logic or mathematics is mere convention, or by agreement, then we could just agree that 2+2=5 and make it work. But if we do that, we can't build bridges or the like. And the principles are found in every culture. Fo example, if you want to build a bridge (that was the example he normally used), you need to have arithemtic, and this same arithemetic is found everywhere. Any other arithmetic fails.

I think these may address:

The Gordon Stein Debate (available free on the wbe somewhere, BTW)

Biblical Basis for Mathematics (I think Bahnsen addresses this issue in the context of math, but it has been years since I listened to this and I may be thinking of something else)

I think Mathematics: Is God Silent? may address it too.

I think Bahnsen addressed it elsewhere, but I can't remember where.

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Scott]

 

[VanVos]

I raised a similar topic a few months ago here:

How do we prove that the laws of logic are metaphysical http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14422

As a presuppostionalist I would argue that the laws of logic are universal, immutable and immaterial. Other wise there is no way to know that the laws won't further evolve in the future i.e. 2+2=5 one day. Plus how would one know they had evolved if indeed that had evolved, one would first need the immutable laws of logic to make such statement, hence denying such a claim.

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by VanVos]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think Bahnsen called the laws of logic abstract, invariant universals.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The refutation might be: "You're a dork."

Does the guy even know the laws of logic?

Even a dog has a sense of logic. He knows that if his bowl is empty that there is no food in it and doesn't try to eat.

Was there ever a time that a circle's circumfrence divided by its diameter was not pi? Was there ever a time when a triangle had four sides?

He must be a pure empiricist that cannot account for abstract, invariant universals so he has to resort to saying stupid things.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
The refutation might be: "You're a dork."

Does the guy even know the laws of logic?

Even a dog has a sense of logic. He knows that if his bowl is empty that there is no food in it and doesn't try to eat.

Was there ever a time that a circle's circumfrence divided by its diameter was not pi? Was there ever a time when a triangle had four sides?

He must be a pure empiricist that cannot account for abstract, invariant universals so he has to resort to saying stupid things.

Actually, any nonmaterialist would just reduce all such things (insticts for example) to brain waves.

 

[JKLeoPCA]

His first error is that logic is understanding the principals all around you. They are not determined by your experience although you do experience them. Kind of like running into the "power and Godhead" of God everywhere you go.

In the 2+2=5 thinking, this could never be, and logic would concur that this is wrong, wherever it is found. The numbers symbolically represent something, that being the case two rocks added to two rocks will never result in having 5 rocks.

just my quick thoughts.

 

[BobVigneault]

Thanks for the chuckles Paul and while you're here, I haven't had the opportunity to congratulate you on your recent wedding. God's rich blessings and joy on you both brother.

 

[BobVigneault]

(Thread hijack on)
Wow, there's nothing more potent than presbyterian fecundity. Well done sir. I already asked the Lord to expand my previous request to include all your generations. Blessings. I'll never tire of seeing a picture of Paul Manata smoking his pipe while Jerusalem burns.
(Thread hijack off):bigsmile:

[Edited on 4-21-2006 by BobVigneault]