Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 142
  1. #101
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir View Post
    Putting aside the grammatically misleading and poorly structured question as to which of the posed syllogisms are valid
    Same ole Gal...consistently rude and condescending. I'll invite you to read this thread: On Fomenting Positive Discourse.

    your claim that #3 is valid is simply wrong.
    Not so.

    Several of your sentences are not in standard categorical form. They must be translated into standard form to be properly evaluated. The second premises in both syllogisms #1 and #3 are not quantified and are therefore ambiguous.
    I agree that it is easier if the syllogism contains the specific quantifier, but it is patently false that it must. Arguments can be derived from text which do not serve the purpose of providing an easy syllogism to be examined Gal. You will not always be provided with the quantifier in the text. And when no limited quantifier is provided, it is justifiable to assume the universal.

    For example, the following statements have the same meaning and have the same symbolization:
    1. All dogs have fleas.
    2. Every dog has fleas.
    3. Dogs have fleas.

    All the are using the universal quantifier. NO statement above has an existential quantifier Gal.

    Statements such as these do however:
    1. Some dogs have fleas.
    2. There are dogs that have fleas.

    If an existential quantifier does not exist, the quantifier is universal. We don't assume a restricted domain, it must be explicit.

    Other examples of the use of universal quantifiers:

    1. Events are either natural or uncaused.
    2. Logic students are logical.
    3. No. Logic students definitely are not logical.

    There is no justification for insisting that the second premise of S3 (which should really be the first premise since it contains the major term) be interpreted as a universal categorical rather than a particular one. Thus S3 commits the fallacy of undistributed middle and is invalid.
    Not so. See above.

    ---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    well yeah, these are obvious examples, very simple and straightforward.
    ...you did not identify the terms manc.

    But we have endless debates over whether

    Stalinist Russia was socialist - was it or wasn't it? perhaps it was and it wasn't at the same time.
    Irrelevant to the nature of logic. If you disagree, simply post the statement you'd like to examine logically.

    Or as I said,

    low interest rates are a cause of recessions
    low interest rates are a cure for recessions.

    both are true
    Yup. Just like saying "My child is both a cause of anxiety and of great joy".

    Again, I think you misunderstand the nature of logic here manc. There is nothing invalid about the statement in question. I suspect that you may be struggling with identifying the terms of the statement being examined (which is why I asked you to identify them and even create a statement to be examined).

    I am saying that when discussing real life, Aristotelean logic isn't enough. You have to look at the process, the living movement.
    It is sufficient when one understands how to apply it. It doesn't seem that you are applying it correctly, which can lead to confusion (understandably).

    In a thread I was accused of saying two things that seemed contradictory. I replied that life is contradictory, and went on to explain why the two things I had said could both be true. You have to allow for the complexity of the real world or any debates are worthless. A thing CAN be both good and bad. Low interest rates are both good and bad for a capitalist economy.
    Yup. Nothing logically problematic about that. You just aren't using the first principle correctly is all. See previous posts.

    Ok you might say low interest rates are good and bad because of different circumstances. But at what POINT does low interest change from being good to bad? This is an example of qualitative change leading to quantitative.

    At what point did Russia cease to be a workers state? Did the mountain cease to be a mountain? A cease to be A.
    This is certainly a matter of interesting discussion (on politics and geology), but not one of logic.

    Thing is, when you stop and think about it, you say, Mountain X is equal to itself for a split second in time, but its not a very useful thing is it?
    Sure it is. It's value lies in the identification of what it is at that time. How the principle is applied to external issues will determine the value of the statement itself (in relation to that issue).

    Consider:

    Mount X right now has the same composition as Mount X right now.

    It's value probably lies only as a logical statement that can be applied to external domains or areas of interest. It's valuable really (IMO), only in is identity.

    But...we can make another statement about a mountain...

    Mount Everest is Mount Everest.

    That is, it is not Mount Hood, or Kilimanjaro. It is indeed Mount Everest. This statement now lets us distinguish between mountains because we have used the principle of identity. Without it, Everse could be Hood could be Kilimanjaro could be {any other mountain}.

    It would seem that you are confusing the nature of logic, with that of language and the value that the argument maker has in his/her provided argument about something.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Same ole Gal...consistently rude and condescending. I'll invite you to read this thread: On Fomenting Positive Discourse.
    Please stop projecting and lead by example. Your question was sloppy and it isn't rude or condescending to say so. You have a comma where you should have a period or semicolon, but more importantly you use the singular verb 'is' when you should have used 'are'. The most natural (logical) interpretation of the question implies you are asking which syllogism is valid, not which syllogisms are valid. That alone justifies an assumption that only one of the syllogisms is meant to be valid and informs the intended interpretation of the ambiguous sentences. This is why the phrasing of your question is not irrelevant and why I alluded to it. I didn't feel it was necessary to explicate why as it was only a minor (but not irrelevant) point and should easily be understood upon a rereading of the question itself. I only do so here in response to your insult.

    As to fomenting positive discourse, I would humbly and sincerely suggest that when reading someone's words addressed to you, without the benefit of inflection, facial expression, body language etc., it is advisable to interpret them in the most amicable way that is reasonable. It is easy to misread intent into the written word that isn't there, especially when one is criticizing, and I find it preferable and more conducive to healthy discourse to err on the side of beneficence rather than malice.

    I apologize that you found my post offensive; it wasn't meant to be so. Whether you find my reasoning warranted or not, I've explained it, and will dispense with the matter hereon if you will permit.

    I agree that it is easier if the syllogism contains the specific quantifier, but it is patently false that it must.
    I think you misunderstand me. I do not claim that a syllogism must be presented with the qualifier explicit. But it is true that there must be a qualifier, even if only understood.

    Arguments can be derived from text which do not serve the purpose of providing an easy syllogism to be examined Gal. You will not always be provided with the quantifier in the text.
    Yes, of course; this is patently obvious.

    And when no limited quantifier is provided, it is justifiable to assume the universal.
    If you mean (which you apparently do) that it is always justifiable as a matter of form rather than sometimes justifiable based on context, then this is just absolutely false. I formally challenge you to support this claim. Context and content inform how one should interpret terms lacking a quantifier. Is it or is it not the case that mammals live in California?

    If an existential quantifier does not exist, the quantifier is universal. We don't assume a restricted domain, it must be explicit.
    Again, I formally challenge you to support this claim.
    Last edited by Galendir; September 20th, 2010 at 01:52 PM.

  3. #103
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir View Post
    Please stop projecting and lead by example. Your question was sloppy and it isn't rude or condescending to say so. You have a comma where you should have a period or semicolon, but more importantly you use the singular verb 'is' when you should have used 'are'.
    I agree that it isn't absolutely grammatically correct. That is irrelevant however. We have no language police here, we have no grammar-nazi's. It was an informal, friendly post to another member that was made over a year ago. Add to that the fact that often times the manner in which you try to correct others comes across rude/condescending and it becomes a distraction for positive discourse. Anyway, moving on to the relevant points of the post(s)...

    If you mean (which you apparently do) that it is always justifiable as a matter of form rather than sometimes justifiable based on context, then this is just absolutely false. I formally challenge you to support this claim. Context and content inform how one should interpret terms lacking a quantifier. Is it or is it not the case that mammals live in California?

    Again, I formally challenge to support this claim.
    I agree that context is important. But context is easily derived from statements alone quite often. The statements I made above for example, and those in the syllogisms provided. If you disagree, then I think you ought to challenge a few published professors, their editors, and publishing companies (from which the examples and claims re: missing existential quantifier were taken):

    Come Let Us Reason
    , Drs. Norman Giesler, Norman Brooks, Phil West and Richard How (numerous pages, but specifically p 22,29). Likewise the textbook Logic and Philosophy Tidman/Kahane.pp 168,172,178

    All S is P is identical to S is P.

    "All" is implied when it is not stated. A proposition that does not have a stated quantifier is called an "individual proposition", when it is stated, it is called a "general proposition". And when the domain of discourse is not explicitly specified or restricted, it is assumed to be "everything" (in that domain).

    I will provide a couple screen shots for evidence and clarity on the matter. It isn't reasonable to expect me to spend the time and energy to post numerous screens to satisfy you however. It's far too time consuming, especially for something which is IMHO, a rather elementary issue on the nature of logic.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2010-09-20 14.52.29.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	87.2 KB 
ID:	2913

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2010-09-20 14.59.54.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	63.1 KB 
ID:	2912
    The text that got cut off is as follows:

    Line 1: of a certain kind is said to have some
    Line 2: begin with words like "all", "every", or
    Line 3: symbolized using the universal quantifier.

    Lastly, perhaps you are confusing truth of a premises with validity of it?
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; September 20th, 2010 at 03:47 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #104
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Not sure what you mean by this 'terms' business. I haven't studied this like you have, I just have a rough working knowledge of dialectics as a useful tool. I just see it as a constant reminder that everything is constantly evolving. Mount Everest is not K2, but one day they both might merge as dust on a sea bed.

    My basic point was that in real life, there are contradictory things, everything contains contradictions, A can equal 'not A', quantitative changes can lead to qualitative changes, the new contains elements of the old and vice versa. Its a useful tool, developed initially by the ancient Greeks (and Indian philosophers), developed by Hegel, and made practical by Marx.

    I just wanted to chuck it in because its a handy way of thinking.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

  5. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I agree that context is important. But context is easily derived from statements alone quite often.
    Well, general context sometimes, but immediate context, no. That is why quote-mining is so misleading.

    The statements I made above for example, and those in the syllogisms provided. If you disagree, then I think you ought to challenge a few published professors, their editors, and publishing companies (from which the examples and claims re: missing existential quantifier were taken):
    The content of these statements, not their context, is what makes it clear that they are to be understood as universals.
    I don't see any claim from the authors, editors, etc. to the effect that the context in which the statements and syllogisms provided are made "is easily derived from statements alone" This seems a rather bizarre claim to make in any case. Perhaps that is not what you meant. Is your point rather that the meaning of the statements (and terms) is clear because the context in which they are here presented is that of a syllogism (albeit non-standard) and thus all non-quantified terms are necessarily understood to be universal? If this isn't your point, then please clarify.

    Come Let Us Reason, Drs. Norman Giesler, Norman Brooks, Phil West and Richard How (numerous pages, but specifically p 22,29). Likewise the textbook Logic and Philosophy Tidman/Kahane.pp 168,172,178

    All S is P is identical to S is P.

    "All" is implied when it is not stated. A proposition that does not have a stated quantifier is called an "individual proposition", when it is stated, it is called a "general proposition". And when the domain of discourse is not explicitly specified or restricted, it is assumed to be "everything" (in that domain).
    I take it that the above paragraph is your synopsis of the relevant content from the texts you reference. It doesn't appear to me that they support the argument I think you are making.
    I understand an individual proposition to simply be a proposition about an individual rather than a class; e.g. 'Socrates is a man.' This statement is treated as an affirmative universal and could be translated as such: 'All things identical to Socrates are things that are men', but this is cumbersome and awkward and uneccessary. The point that your referenced text is making (so I gather) is that individual propositions will (naturally) lack a universal qualifier but are nevertheless logically equivalent in their function to their general counterparts. The text is not arguing however that whenever a non-quantified term is encountered, it is always to be understood as a universal. There are numerous such examples of natural language where a quantifier is omitted from a statement that is clearly not meant to be understood as a universal. When such statements are rendered in syllogistic form, if the natural language is preserved (the particular/existential quantifier not made explicit), then the syllogism will not accurately represent them (i.e. if the assumption is made that statements lacking a quantifier are to be understood as universals).

    In the examples of syllogisms you provided, you expect us to employ this rule of interpretation of non-quantified terms as universals and that this assumption accurately represents the actual argument being made. I think this expectation is unwarranted.
    Rather than further arguing the point here, I'll just quote a passage from one of my texts that happens to be to hand. (I'm not going to trouble myself to post a photo.)

    From: The Elements of Logic Stephen F. Barker, Department of Philosophy, The John Hopkins University -- 1965 McGraw-Hill p. 76-77, 79
    Sometimes we meet sentences that contain no specific indication as to quantity. Occasionally such sentences are really ambiguous, but more often if we think about them we have no trouble seeing that they mean one thing rather than the other. Thus, someone who says "Bachelors are unmarried" surely means "All bachelors are unmarried persons"; but someone who says "Visitors are coming" surely means "Some visitors are people coming". Similarly, "An elephant is a pachyderm" surely means "All elephants are pachyderms"; but "A policeman is at the door" means "Some policemen are persons at the door".
    ....
    Working out translations such as these is necessary as a preliminary to the syllogistic analysis of ordinary reasoning. But it also has an additional intellectual value, in that it encourages us to learn to understand more accurately what ordinary sentences are saying.
    And from the following exercise:
    In each case, (b) is a proposed translation of (a) into categorical form. Decide whether each translation is correct. If any is incorrect, explain why.
      1. (a) American warships are in the Mediterranean.
        (b) All American warships are things in the Mediterranean.
    It seems glaringly obvious to me that (b) is not an accurate translation of (a), yet this is exactly how you insist we must interpret it.

    I appreciate your attempting to meet my formal challenge to support your claim, but I find it unsuccessful.
    From what I can read of it, I don't see that your first referenced text is really advancing the broad principle that you seem to be insisting upon. I can only read what you provided of course, but such as it is, it is very unconvincing.
    Your second selection merely defines A statements. It provides no justification for the challenged claim. That it includes the statement "Dogs have fleas" as essentially meaning the same as "All dogs have fleas" does nothing to argue that in principle all similarly formed statements must be likewise interpreted as universals. All the examples you provided to make your case are likewise understood to be universals because that is the most natural interpretation of their meaning. But it is by virtue of their content, not their form that this is so. This is not the case however for the statement "Mammals live in California."

    I don't think it necessary to comment much on the domain of discourse being unrestricted unless explicitly stated otherwise as it doesn't have much bearing on the issue. Restricting the domain won't change a universal into a particular or vice-verse.

  6. #106
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    There's probably a linguistic argument to be made for Apok's position.

    "A's are B's" is different than "A's are at the door." The first is a predicate nominative; the second involves locality. I imagine there's a clever way to categorize these sorts of statements.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    As an example of a real world application, similar to the scenario you provide above (and found from Wikipedia):
    Lol, no it wasn't found from Wikipedia it was found from a book I have in my house called "Einstein's Riddles" for your information.

  8. #108
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    So, in dialectics, we wouldnt usually refer to Mountain X, but would tend to talk abou the process where a mountain is first formed and alter worn away, only to be formed into a new mountain. There is nothing wrong with formal logic, it has its uses, but dialectics describes the real world in a more complete way. And in dialectics, contradictions are not a problem. Light is a particle and a wave.

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    There's probably a linguistic argument to be made for Apok's position.
    Do you mean to say that there's probably a linguistic argument that would make the case that whenever a categorical proposition is encountered in which one or more terms lacks an explicit quantifier, one is always justified in assuming the quantifier to be universal regardless of content or context?

    "A's are B's" is different than "A's are at the door." The first is a predicate nominative; the second involves locality. I imagine there's a clever way to categorize these sorts of statements.
    The original statement that occasioned my challenge was "Mammals live in California." This, too, involves locality. But such statements lacking a predicate nominative are easily translated into statements having a predicate nominative, and in fact regularly are to make them suitable for syllogistic analysis. "A's are at the door," isn't qualitatively different from "A's are [things/persons] at the door."

    In the sentences, "American warships are in the Mediterranean," and "The British are coming," what ought one interpret the unstated quantitative status of the respective subjects to be? All American warships? All the British? If Apok is correct, then this is how one ought interpret these sentences.

  10. #110
    natano
    Guest

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDEL View Post
    How are you so certain that she won't be able to deny these first principles? I'm asking this because at the moment, the only reason why I take such principles as being valid is because they are extremely intuitive to me and I cannot imagine things not being such. But my inability to see something doesn't mean it's automatically not the truth, is it?

    It seems to me that logic is the resulting model of man's interpretation of the universe. Man did not create it from scratch, but man derived it from observations, intuitions, and experiences as seen from man's perspective. The logic model is of great use to us and it hasn't failed us yet, but I don't see how we can ascertain its ultimate validity given our human limits.
    It is true that mankind's interpretation of reality is often based on our experience. An excellent source to look up on this issue is Descartes. In the end we cannot know what is real around us for many reasons; those that are discussed by Descartes are: 1. we may be asleep - our reality as we know it could just be a dream 2. we are insane - what we see hear etc. are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. or 3. We are being deceived by some powerful entity like an "evil demon."

    The basis then for any kind of justification of logic is finding a single statement that cannot be disproved regardless of any kind observation, experience, past knowledge, etc. - A truth that Descartes feels he discovered. If you care to look it up, feel free - its in Descartes writings called Meditations. If enough people care, a summary is that no matter what, from a personal standpoint, It must be true that I exist. Regardless of whether I am being mistaken because I am dreaming, I must exist to dream. Even if I am insane, I must exist to be crazy. Even if some evil demon is deceiving me, I must exist to be deceived in the first place. All you people may not exist, but I must - the statement must be made in a first person standpoint. Descartes believed that once this undeniable truth is established, all knowledge/logic can stem from it.

  11. #111
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    "Let there be Logic"

    Logic is a tool that can be used to answer some questions, if we are given the right set of valid assumptions. One problem is that it's often difficult, if not impossible to know whether our assumptions are valid. Furthermore, Logic is a process that is performed by human beings. Being imperfect creatures, we cannot know with 100% certainty whether we performed the logical operations correctly. The more complex the question, the more assumptions we need to answer it and the more complex the logical operations become. One final problem is that the natural universe doesn't always follow logical rules. For example, light is simultaneously a particle and a wave.

    X = light
    Y = light
    X =/= Y

    ?

    http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38
    For one, the link to the article doesn't appear to be correct.

    Secondly, your example is not an illustration of a violation of a first principle of logic (namely, the law of non-contradiction). It confuses an ontological statement with a truth statement. In logic, we examine truth statements.

    The law of non-contradiction says that truth statement A cannot be truth statement non-A at the same time and in the same sense. Or something cannot be both A and -A at the same time and in the same sense.

    As to light, its nature appears to be like a wave when it is examined in QM, and it appears to be like a particle at other times (like when it when it bends near large gravitational fields). This is about the properties of light (and a seemingly dual nature), not about truth statements themselves (which is what logic addresses).

    In order for it to be a violation of the LoNC, the particle would have to actually be observed as A and not A at the same time. Since that cannot be done, even in the quantum world, there is no violation. You are talking about "forms" or change of property, not truth statements Zorak.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #112
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,259
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Apok, would it be fair to say that Zorak's take is only true if we assume X and Y are contradictory as well? Forgive me if that is what you are saying and I missed it.

    For example a truck can be X (metallic) and Y (red) but certainly X=/=Y in that statement. A particle and a wave are just such things in QM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This thread is a discussion about what logic is, its importance, how to use it, how "easy" it can be, and also to be used as a reference for other threads. A great book for further study of logic and its application is "Come Let us Reason" by Norman Geisler.

    First post: What is Logic?

    It is the function of the wise man to know order. - Aristotle

    Logic isn't really so tough. In fact, it's one of the simplest things to use because you use it all the time, though you may not realize it.

    When you are at a supermarket and one brand of sugar is 3 cents per ounce, but another is 39 cents per lb. It it doesn't take long for you to pull out your calculator. You do that because you recognize that those ounces and pounds have to be put in the same catagory to be compared. That's logic. You use logic to do most everything. When you decide to take a shower after you work out instead of before, you don't necessarily go through all the formal steps it takes to reach that conclusion validly, but your decision rests on logic nonetheless.

    Logic really means putting your thoughts in order.

    So lets see how order works...

    Order is the key word. It applies to all kinds of different disciplines. In nature, there is an order that reason discovers but does not produce. The patterns of quartz crystals, regularity of natural laws, movements of the planets, complext information in a single strand of DNA - they all show us an order that we can see but that we did nothing to put there, just as you are reading this post, but did not put the words here.

    In art however, we do produce order. The artist imposes order on the things around him. He crafts the lines he wants to see, bends steel to suit his purpose, arranges the rhythms, the melodies, the harmonies to express a certain feeling. Art is created by a person imposing order on the things of the external world.

    In philosophical thinking there is order also. Ethical order is order that reason produces in acts of the will. In other words, it is the ordering of our thoughts about the right and wrong of the things we choose. Whenever we ask a question about what we ought to do, we are ordering our choices by an ethical standard. That order tells us what we really think is good. It shows us what our values really are. Should I lie to save twenty bucks? Should I help the lady stranded on the freeway, or hurry home to watch football? How we answer depends on an ethical order that we produce about the choices we make. The best system of ethics is the one that best expresses the way things ought to be, ie., what really is good and valuable.

    The order of logic is very similiar. It, too, is an ordering that we produce, but it is concerned with ordering our thoughts. Logic is reason looking at itself to see how good reason works. It studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions. It puts all of these methods into an order that gives us the right way to draw conclusions. The best system of logic is one that is best suited to drawing proper conclusions from the premises.

    To state this as a formal definition: Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal.

    Let's break it up...

    Logic is the study of right reason. . . . That is the main point. Logic is a study, an ordering, of how to think rightly, or how to find truth. ie...logic is a way to think so that we come to correct conclusions..

    . . . or valid inferences. . . . That means implications. Part of studying logic is recognizing when A implies B and when it does not. There are clear-cut rules to help us with this.

    . . . and the attending fallacies, formal and informal. A fallacy is a mistake. Sometimes we make mistakes in the way we set up our thinking, or by using an implication that is not true. These are "formal fallacies", because they have to do w/ the form of the argument (more in a future post). Other times the mistakes are in the meaings of the terms we use. They might be unclear or misleading. Or, they might just not have anything to do with the subject at hand. Mistakes like these are "informal fallacies". Knowing the kinds of mistakes we can make helps us to avoid them.

    If we put all of our paraphrases together, we get a simplified definition: Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.

    So regardless of the environment, circumstances, entities involved...logic is unchanging. While the variables may change, the way in that variables are determined to be true, untrue, valid or invalid do not change. Logic is is after all, putting our thoughts in order.

    Fallacies, form, syllogisms, and more will be in a future thread.
    Wrong. From start to finish. You are taking the old view of logic as a sequence of aristotelian platitudes, a tired, circular seqence of definitions. Take for example your proposal that logic is right reason. Don't you mean that right reason is logical? Come on. Sentences like this are simply flag-waving. Circular. They look good. They say nothing. I tell you what, no-one is fooled by this post of yours. But I'm the only one who says so.

  14. #114
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Your objection is merely a "nuh-uh" response. Which obviously, isn't a reasonable response whatsoever.

    If you have an actual objection, please provide one. Attack the argument with an argument, with logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by John
    Take for example your proposal that logic is right reason. Don't you mean that right reason is logical?
    No. We can be reasonable, yet incorrect. We can be correct, yet not reasonable. There were examples given in this thread that illustrated this. And surely, with your self-proclaimed expertise in philosophy, you know this already. Yet, you raised an objection in spite of it...so perhaps you may not be as much of an expert as you believe yourself to be?

    I think John, you'll find your arguments much more reasonable (and thus compelling), if each post wasn't tainted with a misplaced ego and instead, you simply addressed what was being said with reason and humility.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 25th, 2012 at 10:03 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #115
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The law of non-contradiction says that truth statement A cannot be truth statement non-A at the same time and in the same sense. Or something cannot be both A and -A at the same time and in the same sense.
    Actually, and interestingly enough, some experimental physicists have discovered and proven that an atom can be in two different places at the same time.



    Now, how to interpet this rather amazing phenomena and what it means will obviously be discussed and debated for decades. But like everthing else in the QM field, it's pretty mind-bending stuff that is changing old thinking patterns and perceptions about what our world is really made of.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  16. #116
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Actually, and interestingly enough, some experimental physicists have discovered and proven that an atom can be in two different places at the same time.
    This is a change of property. It is a description of an entity. It is not an issue of logic.

    In other words it is a change in how we understand the objections and their physical properties. But it doesn't address truth statements.

    ---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Apok, would it be fair to say that Zorak's take is only true if we assume X and Y are contradictory as well? Forgive me if that is what you are saying and I missed it.

    For example a truck can be X (metallic) and Y (red) but certainly X=/=Y in that statement. A particle and a wave are just such things in QM.
    Not necessarily. While color and metallic are properties, it would be more like "states" or its nature that is being referred to.

    For example, H20 being liquid, vapor or solid (ice). These are different states of being of H20. And H20 is in only 1 state at a time.

    Light just isn't in these 2 different states at the same time and in the same sense. It is either/or.
    In Bohr's words, the wave and particle pictures, or the visual and causal representations, are "complementary" to each other. That is, they are mutually exclusive, yet jointly essential for a complete description of quantum events. Obviously in an experiment in the everyday world an object cannot be both a wave and a particle at the same time; it must be either one or the other, depending upon the situation. In later refinements of this interpretation the wave function of the unobserved object is a mixture of both the wave and particle pictures until the experimenter chooses what to observe in a given experiment.
    http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p09.htm

    The Bohr´s complementarity principle stated the mutual exclusiveness and joint full completeness of the two (classical) descriptions of quantum systems; after Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen’paper, the wave-particle duality, or wave-particle complementarity, could be expressed by stating that it is impossible to build up an experimental arrangement in which we observe at the same time both corpuscular and wave aspects.
    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3568/

    Thus the wave function has an amplitude at both slits, and then when later the wave functions re-combine we get interference. If we set up an experiment at the slits to see what the electrons are doing, we see each electron going through either the upper slit or through the lower slit, never through both slits at once.
    http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/Gener...CompCopen.html
    Or...if you prefer Wiki:
    Numerous experiments have shown, however, that any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a particle passes through reduces the visibility of interference at the screen, thereby illustrating the complementarity principle: that light (and electrons, etc.) can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-...nt#cite_ref-17
    and

    Double-Slit Diffraction
    Light passes through double slits and onto a screen resulting in a diffraction pattern. Is light a particle or a wave?
    The Copenhagen Interpretation: Light is neither. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle (photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementarity Principle).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 26th, 2012 at 09:28 AM. Reason: updated for Cop. Int.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #117
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This is a change of property. It is a description of an entity. It is not an issue of logic.

    In other words it is a change in how we understand the objections and their physical properties. But it doesn't address truth statements.
    Well, it would seem that the behavior of the sub-atomic microcosmic world, contradicts the logic of the macrocosmic world. I find this interesting and it makes me think that the logic of the macro world is all fine/good and important for our progress and reasoning, but it's strict application may not necessarily explain the whole picture of our universe.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  18. #118
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Logic doesn't explain the nature or "whole picture" of the universe. That isn't its purpose. But it does apply to all things.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. #119
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is Logic? (Logic 101)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Logic doesn't explain the nature or "whole picture" of the universe. That isn't its purpose. But it does apply to all things.
    The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy suggests: "Some have argued that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself."

    Would you disagree with this idea?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  20. #120
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    No. Why should it? There needs to be reason for it to be the case. See pm for deets on QM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •