Law of Sufficient Ground. Material for the report on logic

The law of sufficient reason is the fourth and final law of formal logic. Historically, it is also the latest, and it is no coincidence. For comparison, you can see that the three preceding laws were formulated by Aristotle in the 4th century BC.

Until the 18th century, due to its specifics, this law was not applied in classical logic. The reason for this historical delay is the following fact.

In the logical paradigm, the law was introduced by Leibniz, while permitting some inaccuracy in relation to logic itself.

Leibniz described the need for justification in relation to mathematics, implying only purely formal theoretical statements. However, he extended the requirement of formal provability to the whole of nature, with which it is impossible to agree.

Denying the very possibility of ostensivnyh evidence, that is, evidence through empirical experience, Leibniz narrowed the range of applicability of the law.

On the other hand, the law of sufficient reason is an actual demonstration that all things in the world have a cause and effect, all things are related to each other, nothing disappears without a trace and does not appear by itself.

In this interpretation, the law was opened by Democritus in the 5-4 centuries BC. The phenomenon of complete interconnection and interdependence within the world order was subsequently called "determinism".

The law of sufficient reason means that a thought or a judgment is not in itself true or false. In order for the possibility of an affirmation of truth or falsity to appear, one must have at his disposal some strong proof.

A special procedure is recognized as a proof, by means of which it is possible to establish whether the idea of reality corresponds.

For example, the statement "Today is sunny" can be considered quite true if you look out of the window and, trusting the senses, make sure the correctness of the judgment.

However, such provisions are momentary and do not exhaust all cases of evidence.

A more complicated procedure for revealing truth is a proof in which an appeal to the senses is impossible. For example, the event took place already in the past or will take place in the future.

The judgment about the sunny weather would sound in these cases: "Yesterday it was sunny," "Tomorrow will be sunny."

In the first case, the evidence base exists, since one can rely on one's own memory.

In the second case, the judgment is unsubstantiated, and therefore can not be considered either true or false. As for the weather for tomorrow, only a forecast and an assumption is possible. Proof based on probability is not valid.

When trying to justify the falsity or truth of thoughts and judgments, it is first of all necessary to turn to experiment, measurement, observation, research - i.e. To comprehend things in their content aspect.

On the other hand, if theoretical knowledge is discovered in the experiment, which, by its generality and provenness, can be considered true, then it is possible to verify judgments on truth by comparing them with theory. The law of sufficient reason in logic not only allows such an opportunity, but also allows to treat it as a conceptually important action. In this case, it is necessary to trace the formal connection, the coincidence in form between the proposition and its theoretical proof.

On a formal basis, it is possible to recognize all thoughts in general connected with each other, since they have all been formulated. However, the principle of sufficient grounds does not allow us to stop at this step. Recognition of all thoughts belonging to a common evidence base, if there is no empirical verification, will not give either confirmation or refutation of the fact that they have been proven. And consequently, it is impossible to verify whether they are true or false.