How do you know for sure human logic and reason correspond to reality?

[blase6]

I’m not going to make any arguments for this, because then I will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.

I just wonder, how do you answer this?

 

[Bahman]

I’m not going to make any arguments for this, because then I will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.

I just wonder, how do you answer this?

We cannot perceive the world by reason alone. There are other elements like, wisdom, instinct and intuition as well.

 

[GEddie]

We cannot perceive the world by reason alone. There are other elements like, wisdom, instinct and intuition as well.

Not to mention the human senses, without with there’d be nothing to reason about.

ICXC NIKA

 

[on_the_hill]

I’ll give an uneducated answer. (uneducated from the standpoint that I have little formal education in Philosophy and essentially none in Logic, and even less in Rhetoric and Forensics).

How do we know for sure? Because we define reality based on our logic and reason (and the other stuff mentioned: wisdom, intuition, etc.)

-or-

Seek and ye shall find.

-or-

It is what it is.

-or-

We know what is real because it has been revealed to us by God through the faculties he has granted us.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not going to make any arguments for this, because then I will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.

I just wonder, how do you answer this?

It depends on what you mean by “reality”. If you mean “physical reality” you are not necessarily denying the power of reason. It is logically possible that the physical universe is an illusion. It can probably be reduced to a set of equations but that doesn’t explain its continuity and objectivity. Why doesn’t everyone have a totally different concept of what exists? There must be a common factor; otherwise we wouldn’t understand one another at all. Minds cannot normally communicate directly without a physical means of expression.

 

[Aloysium]

We are relational beings.
Our senses connect us to the material word.
Our intellect makes sense of what we perceive in addition to that which cannot be perceived.
If I make my intellect the object of my intellect, I am met with mystery.
The intellect informs and is known in itself - the means by which mysteries commune.

 

[Robert_Sock]

One cannot know reality without knowing Truth! Become a humble contemplative and let Christ teach all that you should know.

 

[Bahman]

One cannot know reality without knowing Truth! Become a humble contemplative and let Christ teach all that you should know.

So lets be each other Christ!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We know our reason corresponds to reality by the fact that to be reasonable is to survive in the real world.

To be unreasonable is to perish in the real world.

 

[PseuTonym]

We know our reason corresponds to reality by the fact that to be reasonable is to survive in the real world.

Under Stalin, some people who said that “as you sow, so shall you reap” and who actually studied and taught genetics did not survive. Reality includes people, and sometimes those people are unreasonable and powerful.

To be unreasonable is to perish in the real world.

Lysenko did not merely survive. He retained his academic authority under Khrushchev, after Stalin died. Shall we conclude that Lysenko was not unreasonable? Judge for yourself. Here’s something to get you started:

Lysenko’s Latest Discovery—The Conversion of Wheat Into Rye, Barley and Oats
nature.com/nature/journal/v170/n4315/abs/170066a0.html

Lysenko, T. D. , Agrobiologia, 6 (1950); English translation, “New Developments in the Science of Biological Species”, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow (1951).

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m not going to make any arguments for this, because then I will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.

I just wonder, how do you answer this?

If proofs were the only way for us to have certainty about anything, then there would be no way to know for sure.

But we can also rely on experience. How do I personally know? Encountering beauty and love, both natural and supernatural.

This interview given by Pope Benedict briefly addresses this in response to the last bold question:
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060406_xxi-wyd.html

Here’s Cardinal Ratzinger on beauty: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020824_ratzinger-cl-rimini_en.html

In addition, i think you’d like Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity, if you’ve never read that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Under Stalin, some people who said that “as you sow, so shall you reap” and who actually studied and taught genetics did not survive. Reality includes people, and sometimes those people are unreasonable and powerful.

Lysenko did not merely survive. He retained his academic authority under Khrushchev, after Stalin died. Shall we conclude that Lysenko was not unreasonable? Judge for yourself. Here’s something to get you started:

Lysenko’s Latest Discovery—The Conversion of Wheat Into Rye, Barley and Oats
nature.com/nature/journal/v170/n4315/abs/170066a0.html

Lysenko, T. D. , Agrobiologia, 6 (1950); English translation, “New Developments in the Science of Biological Species”, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow (1951).

I did not explain myself well.

We know that reason corresponds to the real world when we reason that if we step off the top of a tall building we will survive or perish. Reason tells us we are likely to perish. The corresponding reality tells us the same think with greater certainty when we go splat! :bigyikes:

 

[PseuTonym]

We know that reason corresponds to the real world when we reason that if we step off the top of a tall building we will survive or perish. Reason tells us we are likely to perish.

Instinct tells non-human animals the same thing. Can we conclude that non-human instinct corresponds to reality? Perhaps.

However, if your example is enough to demonstrate that human logic and reason correspond to reality, then your example also suggests that instinct is a satisfactory substitute for human logic and reason.

Do human logic and reason provide any guidance that instinct does not provide?

 

[Bahman]

Instinct tells non-human animals the same thing. Can we conclude that non-human instinct corresponds to reality? Perhaps.

However, if your example is enough to demonstrate that human logic and reason correspond to reality, then your example also suggests that instinct is a satisfactory substitute for human logic and reason.

Do human logic and reason provide any guidance that instinct does not provide?

You got the last part wrong my friend. Animal are also intellectual beings. Instinct simply deals with feeling.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not going to make any arguments for this, because then I will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.

I just wonder, how do you answer this?

It is a self-defeating claim. The REASON the person is “not going to make arguments for this” is BECAUSE they think they “will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.” They are implicitly giving a reason for not making arguments and, therefore, using reason to do so.

The question then becomes, "Is that reason – fear of being attacked for using reason – ITSELF, a good REASON to justify not making arguments?

In fact, it attempts to make an argument for not making arguments – leaving the question open to whether THAT argument is a good enough argument not to.

There is no escaping the use of reason. The issue is whether it is being used well.

In this case, that is doubtful.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Suppose they don’t correspond. So what?

In order to find a bad consequence of such a non-correspondence, you would have to use logic. But the hypothesis that they don’t correspond destroys the attempt at using logic, in the absence of such correspondence.

Therefore, even if they don’t correspond, it’s not worth worrying about.

 

[tonyrey]

As others have pointed out, logic and reason wouldn’t be trustworthy - not least because logic and reason cannot be excluded from reality. If they are, the rest is silence…

 

[blase6]

It is a self-defeating claim. The REASON the person is “not going to make arguments for this” is BECAUSE they think they “will be attacked for using reason to deny reason.” They are implicitly giving a reason for not making arguments and, therefore, using reason to do so.

The question then becomes, "Is that reason – fear of being attacked for using reason – ITSELF, a good REASON to justify not making arguments?

In fact, it attempts to make an argument for not making arguments – leaving the question open to whether THAT argument is a good enough argument not to.

There is no escaping the use of reason. The issue is whether it is being used well.

In this case, that is doubtful.

All human thought and speech involves some reason, whether it is coherent or not. So I cannot really “leave” reason in questioning its veracity.

But maybe human beings have it all wrong by their intrinsic nature. Who can tell.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All human thought and speech involves some reason, whether it is coherent or not. So I cannot really “leave” reason in questioning its veracity.

But maybe human beings have it all wrong by their intrinsic nature. Who can tell.

Well, mathematics and logic seem to work very well to describe (when they are used well) how the world works – giving us excellent reasons for thinking human thought and speech capacities have very likely been calibrated to the physical universe beyond what mere chance would allow. It is just what would be expected if the universe and human beings were designed for a purpose by guess who?

 

[blase6]

Well, mathematics and logic seem to work very well to describe (when they are used well) how the world works – giving us excellent reasons for thinking human thought and speech capacities have very likely been calibrated to the physical universe beyond what mere chance would allow. It is just what would be expected if the universe and human beings were designed for a purpose by guess who?

Sadly there are no guarantees.