You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Hamza Tzortzis wrong? Deductive vs inductive arguments.
It would be an amazing luck if our instincts in the realm of thought could reach each and every truth. Arguing that deduction aided only by innate premises could lead us to know everything would almost certainly imply that the universe was either created by us or for us.
That being said, it is not so usual to compare logic and intuition. I feel it is a good comparison, nevertheless I should notice that most people usually set logic apart of our instincts. Perhaps we could talk about an instinct logic and a refined logic, for the same way science can overcome our initial instincts, the work of logicians theoretically could also do it.
Great point! Yes, it is true that advanced logic could get us farther. But isn't it also true that advanced logic is based on additive simpler logic (a concatenated string of simpler logical steps)? The result of advanced logical might not be itself reached by instinct, but it needs our acceptance of the underlying logic - which is an instintive acceptance... I guess. This differs from science because a logical proposition can't be tested on anything other than logical propositions. Since scientific propositions can be empirically tested against the physical reality, our instinct and logic can be more easily be demonstrated to be false - as it happens in quantum physics.