Do You Think Logic & Reason Are Unreliable since You Can't Deduce The Validity Of Statements Like "I'm A Liar"

Answer 1

Yes, my logic and reasoning are not reliable. So ... I Iive in this world which is full of it.

Answer 2

Logic and reason are reliable in there place. Why can't you deduce the validity of a statement like that. If a person says that he is a liar, and he really is, does that negate the fact that he is a liar just because for once he told the truth. Being a liar doesn't mean that he would tell a lie all the time. But that he tells a lie so often that he is known as a liar.

Answer 3

If discovering some statement X that logic cannot resolve is proof of logic's unreliability, then the proof that logic is unreliable is itself unreliable, as logic has been proven unreliable. Furthermore, the conclusion that the proof of unreliability is also unreliable is unreliable too. And so on in infinite regression. In other words, if logic did not function to a high degree of reliability, we could never draw conclusions about anything, not even about drawing conclusions.

As for your self-proclaimed liar, being a "liar" is a human condition that occurs over time. Therefore your "liar" may well be having a moment of truth about his or her overall difficulty telling truth, thus avoiding paradox altogether. A more inescapable form of the problem is to say "I am lying." However, logic informs us rather reliably that this too is a disposable paradox, i.e., one that can be resolved as a defective juxtaposition of terms, but with no real, inherent paradox. For example, a lie is something you say that you believe is false. If you believe it is true, it is not a lie. So, let’s say your “liar” is Harry Mudd in the Star Trek episode where Kirk uses this very logic to short-circuit an army of robots. Harry says, “I am lying.” If Harry believes he is telling the truth when he says he is lying, he may be mistaken, but he is not lying. He believes the truth of what he is saying, and that is not a lie. On the other hand, if he does not believe the truth of what he is saying, then he does not believe he is lying, and is therefore still telling the truth, twice removed. Therefore, our paradox handling robot may conclude that Harry simply cannot handle the term “lying” accurately, he cannot keep the “belief” element coordinated with the “telling” element. Humans would go further and conclude that Harry either had a conceptual defect that prevented a proper understanding of the nature of lying, or, more likely, that Harry was deliberately juxtaposing inconsistent terms to get some kind of effect, i.e., playing a linguistic prank. Therefore, logic, far from being discredited by such pseudo-paradoxes, shines all the brighter when used to evaluate, among other things, the rich tapestry of human language and thought.

Answer 4

You're making my little head hurt....

Logic dictates that even a liar has the capacity to tell the truth and thus the statement could be true.But there could be no manner to test the validity of that statement since the statement is self defeating and so the deduction would have to rely on reasoning that the statement is probably true based on the logic that even a liar has the capacity to tell the truth.

Answer 5

Actually, the ability to represent paradoxical statements in formal logical systems doesn't render those systems unreliable.

Instead, what you're talking about is a notion called the "incompleteness" of logic. The ability to formalize certain self-defeating statements in logic was used by Godel to prove that logic is "incomplete." This means that there are always true statements within any sufficiently powerful formal system of logic that are unprovable.

The existence of these statements doesn't mean that logic is unreliable, it simply means that there exist true statements that cannot be proven.

Answer 6

Nothing is perfectly reliable except maybe death. But logically speaking, someone who states that they are 'a liar' can rationally and logically be telling the truth in a manner of speaking

Someone who says 'I always lie', is usually being rhetorical and actually mean that they lie a lot.

Reason tells me that it would take such an enormous effort to lie with every single word, that (logically) any statement about lying is not as simple and absolute as a philosophical conundrum would require. It just means that they lie sometimes, to one degree or another.

Answer 7

No, just because a statment creates a paradox does not mean Logic and reason are unreliable.

However in logic If something is reduced to paradox, it forces an arugment to be formed on each side of the paradox. both are equaly vaild arguments when presented together. When presented alone both are false.

Answer 8

actually, I actual don't understand. How did you understand someone is shielding and indignant right here? I actual have replied better than one thousand questions. I actual have never even been slightly aggravated. some circumstances there replaced into some thrilling. it could be a sturdy idea you provide us some examples of - atheists growing hotly shielding AND sorely indignant - questions about our reason/good judgment we like questions about reason and good judgment, extraordinarily even if this is yours. I actual have not seen a lot reason and good judgment from the different aspect of the line the only top weeks.

Answer 9

I am a liar is a valid statement. He is speaking the truth.

A. If he had lied before, he is a liar.

B. If he had never lied before, he is a liar to be saying he is a liar, therefore he is a liar.

Answer 10

There's a world of difference between "unreliable" and "limited". Just because something needs to operate within limits or boundaries doesn't make it unreliable. It means it's a tool, and to be effective it has to be used properly.

Peace to you.

Answer 11

Certainly I can. "I am a liar" is a contradiction, the equivalent of (A&~A).

It is a valid statement which evaluates logically false.