On Truth and Falsity

                          Logic Versus Reality

When the skeptics use their form of logic to reach the conclusion that motion is impossible, they put their form of logic against experience. pb. OP ps. 210-218. But the experience of motion can be put into many systems that benefit humanity, whereas the logic of immobility does nothing at all. Parmenides used his logic to conclude that reality was but one, motionless sphere, and therefore, all motion was but an illusion. But his illusion obtained many good results, whereas his logic brought reality to a halt.

All of this begs the question, when experience conflicts with logic, which one should be considered to be real? There have been times when a person has formulated a system in his mind that he just knew would solve a certain problem he had. He put his plan into action, but it did not work to solve his problem. He became greatly puzzled. He knew his plan should have worked, but it did not. He used his logic to go over every part of his plan to try to discover why it did not work. But try as he might, he could not discover why it did not work. He finally settled on a reason that his plan did not work which he actually knew could have had nothing to do with why his plan did not work. He put his logic in conflict with his experience. Which one was real? Obviously, his experience was that which was real, and his logic was faulty even though he could not discover why it was false. The same happens to be true about the skeptics form of logic. Experience is real, and the skeptics logic has to be false even though we might not be able to discover exactly why it is false.

Sometimes, a scientist will formulate a theory that he just knows should explain a particular problem in an unknown area of reality. If an experiment, which is an experience, falsifies his theory, then it has to be false. But sometimes, other scientists will discard his theory simply because they will formulate logical reasons why his theory has to be false. But those logical systems could be that which is false, and the theory might still be real. Nevertheless, many scientists will often disregard that theory simply because they take the logic of the better scientists to be valid and the theory to be false. But if an experiment should later prove that the theory was correct, then all scientists would be forced to concede that it has to be real. In reality, experience trumps logic even when we do not know why the logic was false. In reality, logic can only be valid when it agrees with experience.

Some logicians, especially the materialists, use logic to trump experience, especially if a person claims to have had an immaterial experience, such as that he saw an angel. According to these logicians, anything that has immaterial existence has to be absurd and therefore non-existent. But if a person sees an angel, he always sees the angel in terms of that which he has already experienced. He sees the angel as a person. Persons are real. He sees that the angel has wings. Wings are real. The angel may talk with him. Talk is real. That which the person does not see is the consciousness of the angel which would have to be immaterial since the person cannot observe it with his senses. While it is quite possible that the person had an hallucination and the angel was not real, only the false combination of the real experiences was not real and not the real experiences themselves. But the false combination of the real experiences would have to be immaterial. He does not see that. On the other hand, the person could have had an experience of a real angel who talked with him. In that case, the consciousness of the angel would be immaterial.

Humans possess the immaterial, but real and useful idea of nothing. Humans can use the real idea of nothing to identify the falsity in false systems which always comprises true and real experiences. But humans never directly experience the unreality within false systems. Humans can only experience that which is real.