John Page

Ade:

I do believe the ontological status of the laws of logic is that they are a product of the minds of mankind, and as such reside and subsist in the minds of mankind.

Of course, the ontological status of the human mind is debateable.

Cheers, John

Defiant Heretic

The sensation of pain would not be the only measurable effect of sticking your hand in a candle. For example, the temperature of your hand would increase, and burns would begin to form. These are measurable effects that can be observed and duplicated, whereas the “feeling of Jesus” is not.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

A 'nut' should probably not believe us if we simply say 'you're a nut'.

But, if the person is still coherent enough to wonder why--after years of not seeing such things--visions of burning bushes or wine-dispensing drinking fountains are now common, the person may actually be looking for the cause of the 'nuttiness'.

If test results reveal brain damage, tumours, lesions, etc., then the person--observing this test evidence--may very well believe us when we say 'you are nuts, and here's why'.

Keith.

AdamWho

Here is some pedantic drivel, ripped from some book, but more in line with the question posed in this thread.

1. The Law of Identity: A=A
For things, the law asserts that "A is A", or "anything is itself". For propositions; "If a proposition is true then it is true"

This law isn't derived from experience and doesn’t have any information content. It would be true as long as there is something it can refer to.

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: A v ~A
For things, "Anything is either A or not-A". For propositions, "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false"

3. The Law of Contradiction:
For things, "Nothing can be both A and not-A". For propositions, "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."

These laws need extra stuff, like a falsifiable proposition. They also need extra data and possibly some assumptions about that data.

Keith Russell

Adam:

You ought to be able to validate these laws yourself.

You should never simply accept what others have written--no matter how much (or how little) data they offer in support of their claims.

Keith.

AdamWho

I made this quote with full understanding of the material; the author just tied it up nicely. Maybe you misunderstood my point; I am interested in the subject of the thread and was trying to pull it back on topic.

excreationist

I think the Law of Identity is derived from experience. Do you think people say "A=A" purely out of instinct based on no prior experience? I think whoever put the idea into words had a lot of life experience behind them. They used that experience to understand how to use their language and how to express patterns that they've found. (i.e. that symbols, like "A", are used consistently)

Well no new information at least. (Assuming people have heard it before) But it still is informative enough to be thought-provoking.

Seeker196

What about electrons? Can't one say they are both 'there' and 'here'? And even that they can be both 'now' and 'then' and 'after'?

AtlanticCitySlave

It doesn't seem to me anyone has provided any reason (other than asserting it) to think the laws of logic are simply arbitrary. How can one hold the law of contradiction is arbitrary? If the laws of the logic, and thus the tool of reason, are arbitrary, why demand that others be "more reasonable" or "logical"?

If the "laws of logic" are arbitrary, how can you possibly argue such a position if you are using logic?

Keith Russell

Atlantic:

Asserting something is not the same as offering a 'reason'.

Second, remember, if anyone was to attempt to 'prove' that logic is arbitrary, they can't--'proof' is the goal of logic.

Anyone asking for proof (of anything, including logic's 'arbitrariness') has already assumed the efficacy (objectivity) of logic, and thus they've already lost the argument.

Keith.