The greatest logic to ever be yet!

**elucid** · 12-13-2011 06:27 AM

Hello everyone,

This is the greatest logic to have ever been because of its relation to "knowing" something, it is the greatest because it is presumed that from this logic, there should absolutely 0 things that you should "know" or you do not get this logic. Thus it is a huge logic concerning science and philosophy.

Here is the logic:

"If you know something, but you do not know of something that proves it wrong, then you can not know that first thing."

So far there has not been a logic that provides a method of finding out if there is a reason or not that disproves a statement, thus it is very hard to know something.

**stormcrow** · 12-13-2011 06:33 AM

I know I exist. I cannot prove this to be invalid because the only possible condition in which I could be wrong, is if I do not exist. If I do not exist then I would not be able to pose the question of my existence in the first place so I necessarily exist if I can pose the question. I can pose the question. I know I exist.

**Arra** · 12-13-2011 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by elucid

"If you know something, but you do not know of something that proves it wrong, then you can not know that first thing."

Can you explain further? I don't understand why this statement is taken to be true. If I'm not mistaken, this is the argument:

I know A
There is nothing that proves A false
----
Therefore, I do not know A

It's just... invalid. There must be something I'm not seeing. Someone enlighten me?

**stormcrow** · 12-13-2011 06:58 AM

I'm not necessarily sure if he means formal logic. The way he is using the word, it seems to me that he is using the word logic as a placeholder for "a particular way of thinking", although he is inferencing into the truth value of a proposition so maybe he might be referring to formal logic idk. Some clarification would be nice. I just typed the first proposition that I felt would not meet the conditions for his "theory of knowledge".

**Arra** · 12-13-2011 07:01 AM

Oh, okay. I assumed it must make some sense I didn't see, since you responded with a counterexample.

**Original Poster** · 12-13-2011 08:11 AM

So basically the OP is saying a truly wise man knows nothing. Thanks Socrates, glad we finally got the verdict on that one.

**DuB** · 12-13-2011 09:34 AM

So basically this is what you were saying back in this thread.

I was confused by this proposition back then and I'm confused by it now. It flatly just does not make sense. You start with premises A and B, and somehow conclude not-A. It's just not a valid logical conclusion, plain and simple. It is at best self-contradictory (you start by assuming A and conclude with not-A) and more probably is just nonsense (how does the conclusion of not-A even derive from the premises A and B at all??). Unfortunately I have to repeat my first response from a year ago: try harder.

**tommo** · 12-13-2011 10:14 AM

Why are there like buttons in here now?

**elucid** · 12-14-2011 04:40 AM

I know I exist. I cannot prove this to be invalid because the only possible condition in which I could be wrong, is if I do not exist. If I do not exist then I would not be able to pose the question of my existence in the first place so I necessarily exist if I can pose the question. I can pose the question. I know I exist.

Glad you even made an example, here is the application of that logic in this paragraph, basically it is saying that since you do "not" know of a reason you do not exist, then you can not logically say that you do because you assumed your existence based on some reason.

Can you explain further? I don't understand why this statement is taken to be true. If I'm not mistaken, this is the argument:

Basically, it is saying that for a statement that you have, if you do "not know" a reason that it is false, then you do not know that it is true as well because knowing that it is "true" means that you know that there is not a reason to prove it false "and" that there is a reason proving it true, both at the same time.

I'm not necessarily sure if he means formal logic.

yes, I mean formal logic. Getting this means that you got the logic.

I was confused by this proposition back then and I'm confused by it now. It flatly just does not make sense. You start with premises A and B, and somehow conclude not-A. It's just not a valid logical conclusion, plain and simple. It is at best self-contradictory (you start by assuming A and conclude with not-A)

Yes, I have had some problems with people understanding the logic, but once understood, it is really hard to get out of, of course because it is purely reason and logic.

I can try harder at explaining it, the first problem is that it "knows" something at first and then refutes it with the next sentence, but it can also be said in this way that to know something, you have to know of a "reason" for that thing or else it is just making a statement by itself and no "proof". Therefore from this you go on to say that if there is a "reason" that exists that proves it false, then that statement is false because it is "disproved" but since we "do not know" that the counter reason exist or not, but know of its affect that if it exists, then our statement is false, if it does not then our statement is true and if we "do not know" then where do we stand in our first statement.

And yes this statement is self-contradictory which is the glory of it which by knowing this "one" thing, you know "nothing" which is understandable with this logic even though you should know one thing from this logic.

Let me know if I need to try harder at explaining it.