[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Chris Wright]

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
> 
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:50:05 +0100, Gregor Richards
>> <Richards at codu.org>  wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> While I wouldn't put it quite so vigorously, Hear! Hear!
>> (why deliberately throw Christians in with Lions? especially when they
>> might be in the NRA)
> 
> 
> The "science" that ascribes to abiogenisis and evolution is very much 
> religious as one can see from the vitriolic outpour of its proponents; 
> it is not science nor is a name-calling debate scientific.  I appreciate 
> the fact that Gregor begs to differ on that statement.  But saying one 
> places his trust in reason alone is rather begging the question: how 
> does this "reason" exist in a random-chance universe; did this abstract 
> ability to reason evolve alongside everything else in random fashion of 
> trial and error or did it also appear from nothing in the big bang; does 
> it continue to evolve, expand, and perfect itself in direct conflict 
> with entropy?  If it does, does that make it imperfect right now?  When 
> will reasoning and reason be perfect?  If it isn't perfect, does that 
> mean our reasoning is greatly flawed still?  Will another million years 
> make it unflawed?  If it was very flawed several million years ago, what 
> effect did that have on macro evolution so many years ago (or vice 
> versa)? How ever does one know his reasoning skills are reasonable in 
> such a universe (sorry, Gregor... that might grate you, but I suppose 
> we'll never see things the same. ;) )  This does require a very /potent/ 
> faith to believe is such improbabilities and that is a faith in "reason" 
> itself.  Should we add a few more billion years to try to resolve it?  
> Would that help? :)

You're asking: how can we trust logic to be accurate?

Try doing otherwise for a day. You can't. You depend on it to survive.

If logic is not accurate, and if your memory is not accurate to some 
reasonable degree, you can't guarantee that anything in the universe is 
consistent. You can't reason about anything. You might as well give up, 
crawl in a hole, and die. Though in that case, you might have a tough 
time killing yourself -- logically, you can't live with your head 
separated from your shoulders, but we said we can't trust logic. And 
even if you seem to experience dying, that's no guarantee that you won't 
continue in the same fashion.

You can't come up with an argument that proves that human logic is 
correct. Arguments require logic; you have to assume logic to argue. So 
if you come up with an argument for logic, you've essentially come up 
with "If logic is accurate, logic is accurate".

You can come up with an argument that proves that human logic is 
incorrect. Since, in order to argue, you must start with the assumption 
that logic is correct, if you come up with a conclusion that logic is 
incorrect, then you've got a proof by contradiction.

But if you assume logic is not trustworthy, and act accordingly, you 
simply can't survive.

I hate these types of philosophical arguments because you might well 
conclude that everyone's deluding themselves, but even if you do, *it 
changes nothing*.