law of sufficient reason - the fourth and last law of formal logic.Historically, it is also the most recent, and it is no coincidence.For comparison, you can see that the three previous law formulated by Aristotle as early as the 4th century BC.
Until the 18th century, by their very nature, this law has not been used in classical logic.The reason for this delay is the following historical fact.
logical paradigm in the law was introduced by Leibniz, while preventing some inaccuracy in relation to the very logic.
Leibniz described the need for studies in relation to mathematics, meaning evidence purely formal, theoretical statements.However, he extended the requirement for formal provability the whole of nature, with which it is impossible to accept.
negation of the possibility of ostensive evidence t. E. The evidence through empirical experience, Leibniz narrowed the range of applicability of the law.
On the other hand, the law of sufficient reason is the actual demonstration of the fact that all things in the world is cause and effect, all things are connected to each other, nothing disappears without a trace, and does not appear by itself.
In this interpretation of the law was discovered by Democritus back in 5-4 centuries BC.The phenomenon of total interrelationship and interdependence within the world order came to be called "determinism."
law of sufficient reason is that thought or judgment in itself is neither true nor false.To have the opportunity assertions about the truth or falsity, must have at their disposal a rigorous proof.
proof recognized by a special procedure, which can be used to determine whether the idea of reality.
example, the statement "Today Rain" can be considered quite true, if you look out the window and, trusting the senses, to ensure the correctness of the judgment.
However, these provisions are short-term and are not exhaustive of all the evidence.
more complicated procedure to ascertain the truth - it is proving, in which appeal to the senses is not possible.For example, the event took place in the past or in the future will take time.
judgment on sunny weather would have sounded in these cases, as follows: "Yesterday it was sunny", "Tomorrow will be sunny."
In the first case the evidence is there, because you can rely on your own memory.
In the second case, a judgment without proof and therefore can not be considered neither true nor false.With respect to forecast for tomorrow is only possible forecast assumption.The proof is based on the probability apocryphal.
In trying to prove the falsity or truth of the thoughts and opinions you must first apply to the experiment, measurement, monitoring, study - ieperceive things in their meaningful aspect.
On the other hand, if the experience is found in the theoretical knowledge that, because of its generality and the proof can be considered true, then check on the validity of the judgment may be, comparing them with the theory.The law of sufficient reason in logic not only allow such a possibility, but also allows you to treat it as a conceptually important action.In this case it is necessary to follow a formal relationship, the coincidence of form between judgment and theoretical evidence.
on formal grounds may admit any thoughts at all related to each other because they were formulated.However, the principle of sufficient reason does not allow to stay in this step.The recognition of all the thoughts belonging to a common evidence base at the impossibility of empirical testing will not give any confirmed nor denied the fact that they are proven.And consequently, it is impossible to verify, true or false.
