One is a result, the other is a process.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

I thought that was what I said in trying to argue for the independence of pure mathematics from any necessary dependence on the physical world.

But since I "have things backward", it's best if I say no more.

Are they not both processes, and results? The process of logic is clear enough, and its result is the true theorem. Experiential truth (or meaning) is also a process, the process of gaining experience or communicating with others based on mutual experience, and the result is a judgement.

Logic is an analytical way to say if “these predicates” are true then “this conclusion” *must* also be true. It proves it as surly as a mathematical equation proves its results, and indeed logical proofs can have a great deal in common with mathematical proofs.

In the real we never have absolute knowledge our predicates to be true, and must rely to at least some degree on inference. We also need to use prove techniques like science even though they don’t actually constitute logical proof. This is why science doesn’t speak of proof or truth, the scientific method itself isn’t capable of providing these the way a proof in logic or math does.

Yes, so the thread is an attempt to look critically at the connections between your two paragraphs. Specifically, one point of interest is the common assumption we find that in the real world, when the truth of a conclusion is in doubt, it must be due to the questionable nature of the predicates used to arrive at that conclusion. Do we know that logic itself can not degrade the actual truth of a predicate? Perhaps it cannot introduce weakness into a rock solid predicate, but when the predicates are teetering, cannot logic cause the conclusions to fall? And can logical truth ever be less solid than the actual truth, as in, can a sentence ever be actually true based on reason and experience, even when it does not constitute a logically provable truth from any consistent set of axioms?

Huh?

Can you provide examples ?

I'm asking for examples.

Hypothetically, how could logic cause the predicates to fail ?

I don't see how this is possible.

Can you provide any example where one might consider this to have happened.

I just assumed the distinction lay in the use of the data observed and used. "truth" being what is and happened, and logic truth what is predicted to have happened/will happen using data from the "truth".

Basically I thought that "truth" is what has happened and logic is the tool used to determine what happened or should happen.

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

Logic contains its own internal meaning, and its reference to actual meaning is a signifier of its reflection of actual truth. Logic has to refer to meaning, otherwise inference and deduction also lack reference to meaning.
So, if reasoning applies formal logic, how does that relate to the meaning of the content? Your relation between meaning and 'manipulative reasoning' introduces an instrumental purpose for logic. Yet, scientific logic is about objective truth, with meaning inherent in facts. The more explanatory a statement, the more meaningful. So the sense of meaning as manipulative is in tension with a traditional view that meaning is objective.

A general assumption is that science discovers actual truth using logical method. The method (logic) is not the result (actual true facts). So the phrase 'logical truth' does not refer to actual temporal things, but rather to connections between things, the inner logic of causality, space and time, as described in the laws of science. There may also be 'logical truth' that does not relate to reality, but you would have to doubt its relevance.

The implication is that logic is truthful in so far as it describes reality. Euclid describes local reality but breaks down in describing the relation between mass and space-time. Euclid's parallel line axiom is not true as a description of actual matter, and so is limited in universality.

I'm not sure how a rock-solid predicate could be caused to fail by logic, I have more in mind how a rickety but workable predicate could be morphed into something unworkable by what would otherwise be considered unassailable logic. It wouldn't be the logic's fault, exactly, because logic does not recognize any concept of "approximate truth." Nevertheless, we use logic as though it worked on approximate truths, every time we apply logic to anything that isn't purely symbolic, i.e., anything that carries meaning. I'm interested in the pitfalls of applying logic to meaning. Also, lest we imagine that logic is always closer to truth than meaning can be, I'm interested in cases where something can have more actual truth generated by applying logic to meaning, than it can have when viewed as a purely formal object.

Perhaps examples would be helpful to clarify what I mean. Physics is great for examples of the former type, say a predicate like "the total momentum of an object is the sum of the momenta of its parts." Then inductive logic would say that if the total momentum is the sum of the two halves of the object, then the momentum of each half is the sum of each of its halves, etc.

An example of the latter type was given above, in the statement "this statement is not formally logically true."

That's an interesting insight, but I think it has to be modified a little. By logic, I mean a certain prescription for determining provability. One cannot prove that a prediction is right, one can only prove that a theory makes a certain prediction. Testing the prediction is more in the realm of what I'm calling actual truth, which often has a kind of approximate character to it. But I think what you're saying is that we can't make a prediction unless we have logical truth to tell us what the prediction is. So this underscores a key reason for this thread: you can't have physics without both logical truth and actual (or experiential) truth, so it behooves us to understand as much as we can about the connection between them.

This approach also shows us what happened when we applied formal logic to the statement that total momentum is the sum of the constituent momenta. The statement coupled an actual truth (about momentum of some object) to a theory about momentum, which has formal aspects (subdivision) to which logical truth can be applied, but logical truth cannot be responsible for when the theory leaves its domain of applicability. Nevertheless, the net result is the use of formal logic to take us from a very good actual truth to a completely unworkable one.

This is a key issue. Does logic refer to meaning, or does it not? It is generally understood that the way logic is used in mathematics can be translated into purely symbolic form and manipulated in that form. We could imagine teaching a clever child, who has no idea what the symbols mean, how to manipulate those symbols-- such that the child could check the logic used in mathematical proofs, translated into that form, without understanding a single thing about the meaning of the mathematics. The child could not find the proofs without the meaning, because proofs require finding the path, not just checking that the path is actually logical, and meaning-imbued truth also exists in mathematics. However, the child could check the logic, devoid of any meaning. I think that's what Cougar's quote is driving at.

Reasoning is used in both formal logic, where it is a purely tautological form of reasoning, more like grammar, and it is also used in judging and manipulating actual truths. That's the issue-- what is the connection between the various kinds of truths we apply reasoning to, and what happens when we combine formal thought structures like logic to informal concepts like actual truth? Just what exactly 'scientific logic' is is a very interesting question, and quite relevant to the thread. Can scientific logic be translated into symbolic form like mathematical logic can, or is it fundamentally fuzzier? How do you translate, for example, Occam's Razor into a formal language of logic, and what would that language look like? For example, if we had as much evidence for something in physics as mathematicians have for the truth of the Riemann Hypothesis, we'd just call it a truth. Mathematicians are bound by formal logic, so they do not have that luxury.
I'm not sure that meaning itself is manipulative, I'd say that we need to apply something to meaning to manipulate it. That something tries to look a lot like logic, but as we've seen, there are a few other steps in there, steps that look kind of like translation into a formally axiomatized physics theory, application of formal logic, but then translation back into something more akin to the "logic of the scientific method." What happens to truth when subjected to manipulation by such a complex and hybrid scheme? Yet this is just the kind of thing that is necessary if we want to be able to use reasoning on actual (meaning-imbued) truths.

But as we've seen, the process in science is not quite that simple-- there's a lot going on in there, like a hybrid engine.
What I mean by "logical truth" in this thread is purely symbolic, purely grammatical if you like. That it has any relation to actual reality is quite interesting, and mysterious, but how closely does it conform to actual reality is essentially the question at hand.

No. We may use the same word, logic or truth in different ways, as both a noun or as an adjective, but per the context of the discussion, the meanings of the words are different. Perhaps we need to describe a difference between true and truth. True is merely a value, a judgement, but truth is a result. "Experiential truth" is the compound concept of experience (a process of observation) and result valued as true. Experience and logic are different processes and their results cannot be said to have the same fidelity. Experience is constrained to concrete physicality and hits the limits of time and dimentional resolution and probability that do not affect the transcendent abstractions of logic.

If you are looking for instances of where the two concepts meet and fail, then perhaps examining logical paradoxes (paradocies?) would be instructive.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

To my mind a distinction between the two abstracts , "truth" and "logic" necesarily requires consideration for a logical analysis, and a truthful analysis.

A purely logical analysis will look only to the concise definitions of each, the definitions themselves of course will use words that are defined in the same manner - that being a dictionary or the like, and those definitions of definitions of words can all be investigated with appropriate reference materials and categorized using venn diagrams, or the like.

Analysis at to what is true may include the following considerations:

Humans are by nature social beings and as such their survival instincs require social analysis/consideration as a part of everyday life. Are social consideratons always logical? Are they always avoidable?

Huamans, as an inate survival skill attach connotations to words and phrases, and other abstracts, based upon their past experiences. Is assuming things will always happen in the same manner as a past experience always logical?

I could go on, but the point is IMHO logic is stripped as far down as possible from the above considerations, yet is a basis for the truth. While how can it not be that the foundation of human logic is the truth?

__________________
Where did everyone go?

Certainly, and it is those differences we are probing.
Yes, I think paradoxes are a good place to start. The liar's paradox has come up, what other paradoxes might have something to contribute?

This is an interesting point. Since meaning involves experience, it must be assumed that past experience is somehow relevant to future experience or meaning would be impossible. Logical proofs are unbending and constant, so they would have little relevance to dynamical conditions where there were no underlying constants. I imagine that logic would be viewed as utterly pointless in such conditions, nor is it clear that intelligence would make any contribution either. Logic must be a kind of template that we keep holding up to our experience, and it helps us find what in that experience remains constant. This is certainly one important connection between logical truth and actual truth.
That's another interesting question-- is truth the foundation of logic, or is logic the foundation of truth? I'm not sure either statement successfully characterizes that relationship, I tend to see them as independent things that share some mysterious connection.

Clarificaton:

IMHO logic is a human "ideal". It is our model of the most accurate and reliable, flawless reality conceivable. IMHO logic is a synthetic a priori model - it is not knowable thru our senses. IMHO logic is one of our first exta sensual cognitions; and leads to developement of imagination (sounds a bit contradictory to correlate logic/imagination).

Truth is our working model of logic. Truth is rugged and reliable, but without the "glass corners" that come with logic. It is what we, without daring to say so, settle upon - once we understand that we cannot harmonize pure logic with the human experience.

__________________
Where did everyone go?

I tend to see the connection between logic and truth along more linguistic lines. To me, logic is like the language itself, the words and the grammar. Imagine you came across a dictionary of an alien civilization. You know nothing about those aliens, just their dictionary. What could you do? You could see the definitions connecting their words, you could see the grammar they use, the structure of their language. You could report back to Earth that yes, the aliens have a consistent language, it all works and could be used to make correct sentences that other aliens could understand. But you wouldn't have the vaguest idea what any of it means.

Truth, then, is the part the logic is missing-- the part about what the aliens mean. So what I'm saying is, logic is the grammar of truth, but it has little to say about what truth is. I believe that was also the point of the quote entered early on by Cougar.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

My first impression of this analysis is that it sells logic short.

I agree that words canbe given concise and exacting definitions - a collection of which can then be compiled and standardized.

However to say that logic is the grammer of the truth will lead to inconsistencies between cultures, rather than repesent the species as a whole.

For example in Japanese language, one "suspends (as if on a high wire" a phone call or when answering "catches" a phone call. Also, one may "kaze kitte" = "catch the wind, meaning contracted infuenza or a cold.

In the US we don't form quite the same mental pictures as associations for logically analizing the act of a phone call or getting a cold. Close, but not logically related.

__________________
Where did everyone go?

That may be a common misunderstanding, but it isn’t true. It’s actually a logical fallacy to say science discovers the truth. Science discovers the best most practical answer, it cannot ever elevate that answer to truth, which is why a Theory is the strongest statement in science.

This misconception is commonly played on by those who wish to reject a given piece of science because it conflicts with their world view. They essentially argue that because science hasn’t proved something yet there are still people who seriously and rationally disagree, thus opening the door for some favored tinfoil hat hypothesis

Science often uses outcome and logic to infer something about the predicates. In this case a shaky predicate could be overturned, but as I mentioned above, while a successful in practice this actually constitutes a logical fallacy. IMO it’s better not to conflate terms like truth, it opens the door for to many abuses. Science has it’s own terminology that works just fine, and yeah you may need to make exceptions when addressing laymen but overall it’s better no to conflate the terminology.

Ah, then what I said before seems to be the most succinct and pithy formulation of the difference. Logic is a process, Truth is a result.

Looking at your example of alien languages, I think your point can be distilled to the idea that logic, as a symbolic language, is concerned with precision, while meaning is concerned with accuracy.

Any paradox where logic leads to an untruth.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Then give symbolic logic a look. I claim that formal logic is the same thing as symbolic logic, and symbolic logic is something you could teach a child to check just by drilling its rules-- with no comprehension at all. Granted, that child would make a poor mathematician, but the reason for that is very much what this thread is about-- the connection between formal logic and actual truth.

If I listen to an argument in swahili, I should be able to tell if the debaters are using solid logic, in the formal sense, if I just know the swahili words for the logical operations. I of course cannot test any of their predicates because I don't know swahili, but there's nothing in formal logic that tells me how to test a predicate, formal logic only connects predicates to other things. Now, if I want to assess the actual truth of a predicate, I will no doubt use logic, but again the logic will merely serve to connect that predicate to other predicates, and I can check the logical content of those connections also, again without knowing any other swahili.
But none of that is formal logic, it's all experiential.

Yes, I agree, although I would say that science can elevate an answer to truth, but it has to carefully describe its prescription for doing that, so it has to label it a scientific truth-- and it often retains a rather provisional flavor. The contradiction between "truth" and "provisional" is something science has to live with, and it says a lot about the "fuzzy" character of experiential truth. Also, science can make no claim to any other form of truth arrived at by other means, and though some argue that there is no other form of truth worth beans, that is always a statement of personal preference/prejudice. But that's a whole other thread.
Yes, the sword cuts both ways-- it means that science cannot categorically refute someone else's "truth" that is defined in entirely different ways, but it also means that that other person cannot ask science to refute their truth before they can be called on to recognize the scientific truth as valid.

Indeed. Symbolic logic. I love that stuff. It appeals to my sense of relations and, when adhered to, is more dependable than any other model of understanding I know.

If I may, my experience with this pure logic is as a mother of truth, i.e., with a solid grasp of formal logic, one can torpedo a battleship of ambiguities and prejudice which left unfettered often delivers a cargo of deformed and stinky "truth". More?

__________________
Where did everyone go?

By that it sounds like you are saying that truth is what you get at the end of a logical process, but in this thread I'm calling that strictly a logical truth. That is actually not the kind of truth that most people manipulate daily in their lives, like whether or not the Sun will rise tomorrow. All logic can do with a truth like that is connect it to its predicates, but the actual truth still relies on the truth of the predicates, which logic cannot address.
Yes, I think that is indeed a valid way to slice the differences. So the thread could also be considered to be about, what is the connection between precision and accuracy, and how do we manipulate both to reach valid conclusions?
I can suggest a few I've heard of:

The prisoner's dilemma (there's a more grandiose version, but in my mind, it boils down to this): a prisoner is told by the warden: "you will be executed tomorrow. However, if you wake up tomorrow knowing that you will be executed, then I will not execute you." The next morning the prisoner wakes up and thinks, "I'm to be executed today, so I know today is the day I will be executed. So I'm waking up knowing I'm going to be executed. So the warden won't execute me!" A smile breaks across his face, saved from his terrible fate. Then the warden shows up to execute him, and seeing his smile, says, "see, I told you that you wouldn't know I was going to execute you!"

This paradox is an excellent example of the difference between actual truth and logical truth. The logical truth, according to the rules of the warden, is that the prisoner could not be executed, but in reaching that conclusion, an actual truth is generated in which the prisoner can be and is executed. If the warden is called before a commission to see if he was lying to his prisoners, the warden has a perfectly solid case, in the court of actual truth, that he was telling the actual truth at all times. Logic is just rather helpless to exert any influence on that actual truth.

This is essentially the observation that formal logic helps us find truth, but we may all be inclined to grant that already, as among our experiential truths. My question is, why? What is the connection between them?

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

In clarification:

Just as in relativity, there can be and often is more than one version of the truth pertaining to the same set of parameters. Both are correct.

Just as in life people often conclude conflicting truths regarding the same set of facts. If one of them wants to convince the other to conceed to his version, then he:

Should understand the nature of "truth" in that it exists in the mind of the beholder alone;

and he should use formal logic to "create" his truth in the mind ofthe other.

I didn't mean I find truth with logic, I meant I use logic to syncronize different versions of truth held by different people, thereby giving birth to a higer level of truth. Don't take that to mean i apply this to science, no.

Truth is subject to change under logical scrutiny. Truth is a compromised version of reality, or better a collective version of reality and the holders of such truth must see it this way as well.

Logic is of a higher order. When souund logic is introduced into a truth seeking mission, it is as if the logic is unopinionated, it is not "my" logic" or "your" logic; therefore it is given defference.

__________________
Where did everyone go?

No, not all processes are logical. Neither are all results truth.

Precision is about resolution. Accuracy is about validity.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau