Because knowledge or logic is the organization of the past. Just because something is logically expressed through syllogisms or mathematical equations dosnt necessarily make it true, just logical or causal.
Probability is the implications of the past and present toward a possible future.

Yes! A probabilistic theory of causality is exactly what I am going for. However, let me show you the exact argument that I took the disputed statement from:

The concept of probability is wholly antithetical to that of causality. If one event A causes another event B, then there must exist a deterministic law that connects them together. If it should turn out that at root our world is physically indeterministic–if the quantum mechanical view is borne out–then it would follow that the physical world obeys purely probabilistic laws. This being the case, it would follow as well that “causes” do not really exist in this universe.

(Elements of Deductive Inference, Joseph Bessie and Stuart Glennan)

Notice the argument disputes our fusion of causality and probability, if correct. I do not accept it however, on account of the arguments laid out in the thread.

It is hard to know what to say except that the authors are plugging a view that most philosophers and scientists do not accept. Is this your text for logic? Are you going to a Catholic institution?

Haha, no I’m not. I didn’t say it was a good argument, just an argument. They offer plenty of good and bad arguments in this text, whether or not they are good or bad is left for the reader to determine. Logic is the analysis of arguments after all, whether they be good arguments or bad arguments matters not to the logician.

A good question. I’m sympathetic to Quine, in that if we modify our language sufficiently, we can make anything a truth. But I’m a pragmatist, so if we want what we are saying to actually be understood, then we ought tie ourselves to a known narrative and express ourselves within that narrative so that we can achieve some particular end.

But logic is by its nature a closed system based off axioms. How well that system relates to the real world is entirely contingent upon the quality of those initial axioms. Clearly they don’t come from nowhere, but a theory of optics based around a straw actually bending in water will result in radically different conclusions from a theory of optics based around the idea that the refractive index in water is different from that of the air. Right?

That is the sort of divide I am talking about. It isn’t hard-and-fast. But is most certainly is there since logic is imperfect. Like any other system. What can you do?

Since the closed systems represented by logic can only be imperfect, what is the best way of relating them to the real world? How are we to judge how close they come? Why, through probability of course! And fields like science do this, of course. Statistics plays a very vital role in science. Because it so eloquently bridges that gap between the logical system that we think is going on and the chances of that happening in the real world. Science’s track record shows that this is not a bad approach at all, indeed, it is the only viable one.


Indeed I am. Care to expose your ignorance as to what science is by talking to me?

And straight to the ad homs? Really? You’ve always been one to hit below the belt but normally it takes a while. You are working beneath your station here. Come on. Hit me with a proper argument. You know, logically constructed and all that :slight_smile:

You oversensitive penis-end, all I did was ask a question. The fact you are so insecure about your profession and your claims that it involves ‘the real world’ is illustrated by your presumptive nonsense here.

In short, fuck off.



Surely a logical argument can only ever deduce information given in the argument - otherwise it is induction and that falls foul of Hume’s law right? (I haven’t studied philosophy as an academic so hold your horses if this is all wrong and you feel compelled to shoot me down, instead simply take my argument and point to my mistakes, my inductions)

I haven’t read the rest of the conversation fully,

so if I repeat stated views then don’t reply, just say ‘already done that you goon’ or the like.

Probablity refers to the ability of our minds to extend reality into what we might call ‘causal effect streams’ or ‘alternative versions of reality’ - these are not what happens, these are induced versions of reality that we extrapolate towards base on our understanding of causality.

Hume showed that induction is simply an instinct, whereas deduction is tautological - logic is circular. (a circle is round shape, a round shape is a circle)

So, as a species, our brains function so as to extend reality (create the idea of causal effects) because this allows us to infer things about behavour, reality and where we are headed.

So to talk of logical arguments as a truth that corresponds to reality in existential terms is non-sensical, rather, we can only ever inductively reason for causality or probablity.

  • And inductive reasoning is what I call extension of reality.