Reliable Reasoning

2005-12-26 21:09:00

Larry

"The science of correct or reliable reasoning..."

This is correct if one actually knows the details. This science is primarily concerned with the form of correct arguments. It is concerned with what makes "reliable reasoning" given a set of premises. The study of logic itself though is not about the validity of the premises themselves (there are other areas in philosophy that are concerned with that).

The various dictionaries I checked gave several definitions of the word logic. Many give four or five. Their method is to list as number one the most popular use and application of the word. Then number two is the second most common etc.

The definitions I gave yesterday from the various dictionaries were all from the number one definition. On the other hand, it appears that your use of the word as "a formal and structured system of reasoning or argument" applies to a lesser used definition, usually in second, third or even fourth place, but never first.

The problem I see with our communication is that I am using the word in its most popular and accepted usage and you are using it as it pertains to a school of thought taught in specific logic courses in college.

If we continue to do this both of us will be beating our heads against the wall in frustration.

We need to both use the same definition if we are to get anywhere.

As I said I agree with the prime definition from my Random House Dictionary which reads:

"The science of correct or reliable reasoning..."

Now formal logic as taught in college will stress the "correct" part and ignore the "reliable." I stress the "reliable" part for if logic is reliable (that is it leads to correct conclusions) then it is automatically indicative that the logic was "correct."

In a college course what is and is not correct is always stressed for this makes it easier to give a grade. You can be as reliable as God and not be correct in the professor's eyes and receive a failing grade.

The logic I deal with in my teachings have one criteria for the test of its validity. Do the results end in a conclusion that appeals to the highest of mind, soul and spirit as being true?

One must also keep in mind that my logic has wide appeal to students because many times I use it to bring down to earth that which I have received intuitively through The Oneness Principle. Since higher principles are always logical this means that I can always defend them with logic and reasoning.

Larry:

However, I do predict that when/if your teachings gain wider acceptance that you will be roundly ridiculed and lampooned for what you have said on this subject. I say that as a friend. I have done my best to try to warn you.

Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Lincoln, Jefferson were all great exponents of my brand of logic and any lampooning of them usually makes the lampooner look ridiculous. I expect this to also be the case as far as my teachings go.

I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason for them to cheat [on nukes]....I looked them right in the eyes. And they looked like they meant the truth. You know, just because somebody's done something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the future or the present. That happens all the, all the time. Ted Turner (example of terrible logic)