(no subject)
Logic is a fallacy.
If we do not have a reason for what we believe, our belief is arbitrary.
If we have a reason A for what we believe, we must have a reason B for that reason A, or reason A is arbitrary.
We must have a reason C for believing reason B, or that reason B is arbitrary, etc.
This creates a regress which is either resolved by being...
a) Based on one or more foundational 'truths'. However, in order for these truths not to be arbitrary, they must have reasons for being true, and so the regress continues as before.
b) Internally true. For example, 'God created the bible, and the bible contains the word of God. God always tells the truth, so God exists'. This is an internally true logic statement, but the premise presupposes the conclusion. Circular logic like this proves nothing outside of itself, and there is no reason for its conclusions to be true.
Or, c) the regress actually does continue towards infinity. In which case no one would ever be able to justify any of their beliefs.
More reasons: Logic is an untestable hypothesis. I made the previous statements using logic, but the statement disproves logic. Because I've disproved logic with a logical proof, I've disproved my logic and so have not disproven logic as a whole. Any logical statement which disproves logic self-destructs, and so logic essentially cannot be disproven through logic. It's important to realise that logic can't be proven true with logic for the same reason. Something that uses logic to prove logic is circular, i.e. it's premises presuppose it's conclusions (An example of what this proof would look like is this: 'Logic works, so I can say --insert logical proof which justifies logic-- and it will be true. Therefore, logic works).
Conclusions in a nutshell-
Do not trust logic in any form.
Do not trust or distrust logical conclusions: just because logic is wrong doesn't mean it's conclusions are wrong.
Do not give unequal weight to an argument that seems 'more logical'. All arguments are equally false/true since they are all based off of the assumption of a 'functional' logic that does not exist.
If we do not have a reason for what we believe, our belief is arbitrary.
If we have a reason A for what we believe, we must have a reason B for that reason A, or reason A is arbitrary.
We must have a reason C for believing reason B, or that reason B is arbitrary, etc.
This creates a regress which is either resolved by being...
a) Based on one or more foundational 'truths'. However, in order for these truths not to be arbitrary, they must have reasons for being true, and so the regress continues as before.
b) Internally true. For example, 'God created the bible, and the bible contains the word of God. God always tells the truth, so God exists'. This is an internally true logic statement, but the premise presupposes the conclusion. Circular logic like this proves nothing outside of itself, and there is no reason for its conclusions to be true.
Or, c) the regress actually does continue towards infinity. In which case no one would ever be able to justify any of their beliefs.
More reasons: Logic is an untestable hypothesis. I made the previous statements using logic, but the statement disproves logic. Because I've disproved logic with a logical proof, I've disproved my logic and so have not disproven logic as a whole. Any logical statement which disproves logic self-destructs, and so logic essentially cannot be disproven through logic. It's important to realise that logic can't be proven true with logic for the same reason. Something that uses logic to prove logic is circular, i.e. it's premises presuppose it's conclusions (An example of what this proof would look like is this: 'Logic works, so I can say --insert logical proof which justifies logic-- and it will be true. Therefore, logic works).
Conclusions in a nutshell-
Do not trust logic in any form.
Do not trust or distrust logical conclusions: just because logic is wrong doesn't mean it's conclusions are wrong.
Do not give unequal weight to an argument that seems 'more logical'. All arguments are equally false/true since they are all based off of the assumption of a 'functional' logic that does not exist.