The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Four value logic, for example, can handle inconsistencies and unknowns. Which are common in real life.

How is that only "different" and not better than a logic that can only handle binary, true/false statements?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 11:10 am Four value logic, for example, can handle inconsistencies and unknowns. Which are common in real life.

How is that only "different" and not better than a logic that can only handle binary, true/false statements?

The versions of rationality I mentioned handle gradations, probabilities, ranges of certainty, etc. very nicely. But don't under-rate true-false statements, either: they're the foundation of life and survival itself. And the most reliable kinds of knowledge we get will fit the true-false pattern.

The versions of rationality I mentioned

ROFL

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 1:06 pm

The versions of rationality I mentioned

ROFL

Hmmm...so you don't think "mathematical logic, probability estimates, empirical demonstrations, preponderance of evidence" are useful in dealing with indeterminacy? You'll have to explain why you think that. It's pretty obvious they are exceedingly important in that role...at least, to most people.

"Empirical demonstrations, preponderance of evidence" are used to determine the truth value of a statement. And it can have several values ... true, false, both true and false, neither true nor false or in your case true or false.

IOW, if you have a preponderance of evidence then a statement would be true you could just use logic without shifting to a "preponderance of evidence version of rationality".

The problem arises when you lack evidence or you have inconsistent evidence. Then you have the both T and F or neither T nor F cases.

Multi-value logic allows you to draw conclusions in those cases. Binary logic does not.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 1:36 pm "Empirical demonstrations, preponderance of evidence" are used to determine the truth value of a statement.

No, actually...they are used probabilistically, to reduce the chances of being wrong...not to establish truth with certainty. So they're not "binary."

I can assure you that the following is my genuine work, Gary (or anyone else reading); however, I used ChatGPT to polish the text, which I believe is acceptable:

I think your questions are best addressed using a modal system of reasoning. We cannot factually establish whether God, if He exists, is a moral agent, because doing so would require us to transfer our varied human ethical and moral systems onto a being whose nature and scale may be beyond our comprehension. However, if we consider the biblical conception of God, we encounter several relevant variables: God gives humanity a moral framework to follow, and He provides a path to eternal life through belief in Jesus Christ. In modal terms, these are significant variables because they establish a coherent basis for the possibility that God could be a moral agent. We cannot simply disregard them and then claim to have reached a rational conclusion.

At the same time, we have the existence of profound suffering in the world, which the biblical God permits, alongside the existence of morally good actions and outcomes. We therefore have several variables that must be considered together: suffering, moral good, the provision of a moral framework, and the provision of a path of salvation. Within a modal framework, these variables do not establish that God is a moral agent, nor do they establish why suffering is permitted. However, they mean that we cannot rationally deny the possibility that God, if the biblical God exists, is a moral agent.

I think that, rationally, this is as close as we can get: not certainty, but a coherent and non-dismissible possibility that remains open to further examination.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 1:51 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 1:36 pm "Empirical demonstrations, preponderance of evidence" are used to determine the truth value of a statement.

No, actually...they are used probabilistically, to reduce the chances of being wrong...not to establish truth with certainty. So they're not "binary."

CORRECT -- Science does not deal with TRUTH but only probability not by chance/error/noise. The different sciences have different standards. That for Physics is usually "sigma 5" << five standard deviations >>

Please note that your belief that you have a sure/surer path to TRUTH better than this is probably unfounded. What is the likelihood that you are delusional? (what is the percentage of delusional persons in the population --- that would be how many standard deviations --- I'll start you off by pointing out that 2% is about sigma 2).

Aristotelian logic only has true and false.

Therefore one is forced to convert a probability to 100% certainty in order to use it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 6:15 pm Aristotelian logic only has true and false.

Therefore one is forced to convert a probability to 100% certainty in order to use it.

Actually, no.

There are two types of logic: deductive and inductive. Aristotle used both. Deductive logic is true-false if the premises are true, and if they are logically and properly associated (called "valid") with the conclusion (called "sound"). Inductive logic deals moves from the particular to the universal, and hence, is always probabilistic, not absolute. 100% certainty only applies to the matter of the logico-mathematical validity of a deductive syllogism. It does not apply to inductive cases, and doesn't even apply to all words in the premises of a deductive syllogism, the premises of which are always open to linguistic and factual questioning.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 6:53 pm There are two types of logic: deductive and inductive. Aristotle used both. .

Well, I'm no logician, but even I know there is abductive logic;
apagōgē to Aristotle.

It has nothing to do with induction, deduction or abduction.

My point is that Aristotelian logic is binary. It only has two truth values, true and false.

Statements have to be shoehorned into true or false. If not, then you can't use binary logic.

Since Mr. Can often refers to the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction in his posts, he agrees that it's a binary logic. Does he understand what he is saying? Probably not.

In any case, it's easy to confirm.

In logic, a finite-valued logic (also finitely many-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which truth values are discrete. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logic, the bivalent logic, also known as binary logic was the norm, as the law of the excluded middle precluded more than two possible values (i.e., "true" and "false") for any proposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-valued_logic

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 8:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 6:53 pm There are two types of logic: deductive and inductive. Aristotle used both. .

Well, I'm no logician, but even I know there is abductive logic;
apagōgē to Aristotle.

Abductive (also called "inference to the best explanation") is borderline. Is it a real logic? It does not have the formal structure of one. But I think it does deserve some serious consideration as a method, though a probabilistic one. That's the sort of thing I meant when I referred to things like "evidence" and "probability" as a "third option." There are other methods of knowing.

But my point was that feelings and wild guess-making aren't two of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 10:18 pm But my point was that feelings and wild guess-making aren't two of them.

"Wild guess" and "feelings" should not be grouped together.

It makes less sense to consider why you make a particular wild guess than to to consider why you might have some particular feeling. Especially when the topic under discussion is morality.

Your insistence on wanting a rational argument is missing something very important bout how neural nets work (what they can do). If a neural net is "trained" on situation A (the correct answers right/wrong used for training might have rational reason), likewise for situation B, C, D, .... (some reasonably large number of them) and you then ask the neural net for situation X (not something it was trained on) it likely WILL be able to decide right vs wrong. << our brains are emulating a neural net >>

THAT doesn't supply a rational explanation for what answer was given for situation X. Looking at what the answer was (right or wrong) you might or might not be able to come up with rational explanation of why you agree with that answer.

Now consider yourself. You may have rationally analyzed situations A, B, C ,...... justifying your answers as to what choice of action right or wrong. But all of a sudden you are faced with situation X and told CHOOSE. You likely will be able to choose which action right and which wrong, it will FEEL like an obvious choice. Should you care to look back later, you MIGHT even be able to come up with a rational explanation.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 11:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 10:18 pm But my point was that feelings and wild guess-making aren't two of them.

"Wild guess" and "feelings" should not be grouped together.

It makes less sense to consider why you make a particular wild guess than to to consider why you might have some particular feeling. Especially when the topic under discussion is morality.

Your insistence on wanting a rational argument is missing something very important bout how neural nets work (what they can do). If a neural net is "trained" on situation A (the correct answers right/wrong used for training might have rational reason), likewise for situation B, C, D, .... (some reasonably large number of them) and you then ask the neural net for situation X (not something it was trained on) it likely WILL be able to decide right vs wrong. << our brains are emulating a neural net >>

THAT doesn't supply a rational explanation for what answer was given for situation X. Looking at what the answer was (right or wrong) you might or might not be able to come up with rational explanation of why you agree with that answer.

Now consider yourself. You may have rationally analyzed situations A, B, C ,...... justifying your answers as to what choice of action right or wrong. But all of a sudden you are faced with situation X and told CHOOSE. You likely will be able to choose which action right and which wrong, it will FEEL like an obvious choice. Should you care to look back later, you MIGHT even be able to come up with a rational explanation.

Well, maybe that's just "rationalizing," not rational. A rational solution is quite different from one that is being artificially excused, ex post facto. There are plenty of people who make grossly immoral choices, like murdering their children, because they felt like doing it, and then try to invent "reasons" why it was okay for them to do.

However, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not what they did was actually a moral thing to do. And it doesn't make what they did rational, no matter how desperately they work to "rationalize" after the fact.