Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:18 am
When one it too focused on logic, one merely relying on half-truths because all the variables in logic has to be universals and not particulars with their specific realistic properties.
As I had often quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.
Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument the conclusion is fundamentally a half-truth.
Given that this post is a logical argument, dealing at the universal level, the conclusion is a half-truth.
But....
it gets even more interesting. Most arguments are not just one syllogism or line of deduction. There are several, such as the argument in this post. So, each of those logical subarguments are half truths. Here we are not dealing with a single argument, like
Socrates is a man,
all men are mortal
Therefore Socractes....well you know the rest.
There are several sub-arguments. Each of which, if Veritas is correct, is fundamentally a half-truth.
If your FINAL conclusion is drawn from several subarguments, all logic based, then the conclusion would have to be less than a half truth.
Then of course there is inductive logic and that nowhere is Kant coming up with a percentage of truth, but is in fact talking about the areas of knowledge and their differences.
But I found it more fun to accept the conclusion and look at the implications.
So,
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument the conclusion is fundamentally a half-truth.
is at best a half truth if not worse.