An Observation

[KLP]

It is probably not wise but I will add this thought. Klp, you have indicated you've never studied the historical critical scholarship perspective, but you claim it's nonsense (my words and interpretation of your post, but I may have misunderstood) and I'm wondering how you know that if you've never investigated it? I realize I pissed you off royally when I first began posting. I was wrong to do that and to post the things I did. You are correct this is primarily a support board, but I don't think that eliminates all other thoughts and comments, but I may be mistaken about that. ...

I can understand that you are not accustomed to be directly challenged by being shown that your so called "fact based" postings are really just unfounded and readily countered assertions and opinions. Yes, I get how that pisses you off or that you are unable to accept or believe that anyone could possibly use actual fact and logic to openly refute what you have posted. I understand how some people reject out of hand any input from anyone who they deem to not be as smart or to not have sufficient bona fides. And I understand how people that are used to thinking of themselves as being superior and are used to being praised for how smart they are can get upset and feel threatened when this is discontinued. In my experience there are generally two ways this goes. Either the person continues to pretend they have no idea what anyone is talking about as they continue to serve their BS sandwiches....or they realize the BS sandwich they are serving is not being swallowed and they knock it off. I apologize that my being honest and sharing my thinking in regards your assertions and how they are insulting and or invalid has upset you.

[B.H.]

KLP,

How do we know that logic and such can deliver us the truth about what we are inquiring about?

[KLP]

KLP,

How do we know that logic and such can deliver us the truth about what we are inquiring about?

Things outside of the natural realm cannot be examined from inside the natural realm. Therefore, there is nothing that anyone can assert as being objectively true or false about the supernatural realm whilst they are still bounded by the natural realm.

[B.H.]

KLP,

How do we know that logic and such can deliver us the truth about what we are inquiring about?

Things outside of the natural realm cannot be examined from inside the natural realm. Therefore, there is nothing that anyone can assert as being objectively true or false about the supernatural realm whilst they are still bounded by the natural realm.

I agree. But would you agree logic and such would fail us regarding the natural world, say, providing there was something we were engaged in investigation about but there were factors regarding what we were investigation we had no way to be aware of or detect that would give us a false conclusion even though the logic was correct?

[KLP]

Hey, caloric theory worked for a while and for some things. Germs, atomic particles, and things invisible to the naked eye would of course...wait, are you going for the djinn thing again?

Logic can be very helpful in weeding out the BS people push and in that way might be helpful in highlighting a remaining truth. So if for example someone were to assert that they "know" and are assured that such-n-such is true about something outside nature then it is by logic that such a statement is categorized as "opinion" and not objective fact. No need for years of study to engage a debate to determine that the assertion is not objective, therefore logic can be very efficient. And of course then one can categorize all additional comments propping up said assertion, such as strength of proponents or the lack of mental capacity of opponents, as just so much bashing and posturing. That is what logic is good for...identifying and deflecting the BS.

BH, these links may be of interest to your line of thought (assuming you are not going for djinn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... c_theories

[Moogy]

I am going to revert to the theory that i find most logical, which is that I am a brain in a vat in some scientific lab. The entirety of the universe, including all of you, is just a bad dream. I have no way of knowing what the universe really is.

[Ivy]

... I am a brain in a vat in some scientific lab.....

Oh my goodness!! My kindred spirit....

[B.H.]

Hey, caloric theory worked for a while and for some things. Germs, atomic particles, and things invisible to the naked eye would of course...wait, are you going for the djinn thing again?

Logic can be very helpful in weeding out the BS people push and in that way might be helpful in highlighting a remaining truth. So if for example someone were to assert that they "know" and are assured that such-n-such is true about something outside nature then it is by logic that such a statement is categorized as "opinion" and not objective fact. No need for years of study to engage a debate to determine that the assertion is not objective, therefore logic can be very efficient. And of course then one can categorize all additional comments propping up said assertion, such as strength of proponents or the lack of mental capacity of opponents, as just so much bashing and posturing. That is what logic is good for...identifying and deflecting the BS.

BH, these links may be of interest to your line of thought (assuming you are not going for djinn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... c_theories

But KLP I am not talking about issues of the spiritual realm, but those of the physical. Can logic, at times, give you a wrong result even though you used its tools correctly?

[KLP]

Hey, caloric theory worked for a while and for some things. Germs, atomic particles, and things invisible to the naked eye would of course...wait, are you going for the djinn thing again?

Logic can be very helpful in weeding out the BS people push and in that way might be helpful in highlighting a remaining truth. So if for example someone were to assert that they "know" and are assured that such-n-such is true about something outside nature then it is by logic that such a statement is categorized as "opinion" and not objective fact. No need for years of study to engage a debate to determine that the assertion is not objective, therefore logic can be very efficient. And of course then one can categorize all additional comments propping up said assertion, such as strength of proponents or the lack of mental capacity of opponents, as just so much bashing and posturing. That is what logic is good for...identifying and deflecting the BS.

BH, these links may be of interest to your line of thought (assuming you are not going for djinn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... c_theories

But KLP I am not talking about issues of the spiritual realm, but those of the physical. Can logic, at times, give you a wrong result even though you used its tools correctly?

I'll take it you either didn't follow the links or your comprehensions skilz need work.

BH, if you have a point to make then make it. Your question is so open ended and vague that it has to have a true case....I guess maybe your point is that it would apply to the specific use of logic in this case. But then you have yet to make a point. If you want to talk about this specific thread example topic then fine. If you want to know if people can ever be wrong when they thought they were right then go look in a mirror.

[agricola]

BH - sure they can - logic is a tool or a method: put in faulty data, get a faulty result - EVEN WHEN the tool itself/method itself is used properly and correctly.
Those basic assumptions will bite you in the ass if you aren't careful.