Why no science of logic?

[skepticalbip]

There have been lengthy threads on objective vs subjective.

At the best case objective is an experiment with measured data. Objective generaly means reults are not baffected bu personal or subjective bias. Bias can be subsonsious.

Logic is a defined system. It has functions like AND and OR with specific defintions, truth tables. There are rulesand axioms of logic.

But there are no rules on how to apply logic. That is based on knowledge and experience of which you are applying logic to.

There is no absolute objectivity. Subjective and objective are relative terms.

Algebra is objective. No matter how you set up a problem if the rules are obeyed the result is valid. However how you set up the problem may not be objective. Garbage in Garbage Out applies. Like logic there are no rules or logic on how to apply algebra to an arbitrary problem.

There are no absolutes.

Now to bend EBs mind a bit.

The Laws Of Conservation from thermodynamics evolved in the 19th century from research and development if steam imagines. They are the foundation of all science and technology.

In texts it is stated that there is no proof they are true, only that no exceptions have been observed.

All things mathematical and scientific in the end are validated by testing and usage over time. What comes to be considered objective develops over time. This is what I got from Popper's Objective Knowledge. There is no and can be no stanrd to judge objectivity in any absolute sense. We have no absolute reference point.

^^^
It is a bit humorous that there are many non-scientists who really believe that science finds absolute truths, scientists know better. I'm not sure if philosophers actually believe philosophy finds absolute truths but some certainly act like they believe they do.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic is a subject in it's own right, like mathematics. An aspect of philosophy that like science has become a subject matter of it's own.
Since ancient Greece, it has been studied and still is. Logic does have overlaps with other subjects, such as mathematics.

I found that all the books I looked into deferred to mathematical logic nowadays. Aristotle's theory is only perfunctorily mentioned if at all. A French philosopher already lamented this around 1926 I think. So, if you know of anybody still doing fundamental work on logic without deferring to mathematical logic, I'd be interested.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings,

You keep quoting these words of yours as though they were scripture, and treating the others as heretics for straying from them. Of course without ever explaining them. So I will ask specifically: Is logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings different from (part of) what cognitive psychologists study under the umbrella of studying human reasoning? Is so how?

Yes, it's different. The term "human reasoning" itself says it all. Usually, these people will look at how language is used to produce arguments in a broad sense. Not my concern here. Deduction is never considered essential. Some authors even express doubts at to whether deduction plays any role. Deduction, if they talk about it at all, is taken to be properly modelled by mathematical logic, and this without even looking at any empirical evidence. They defer to mathematicians.

The scientific investigation of deduction as a capability is a minor aspect of the cognitive sciences and a fairly recent one. It is also limited to investigating how well human subjects perform at tasks of formal logic, which is not my concern here. They have no interest or motivation to develop any formal model of deductive logic based on empirical evidence.

Any formal model of deductive logic these scientists may need will be the one developed in mathematical logic, essentially because there is no other and perhaps cognitive scientists are deterred by the mammouth task of understanding the whole of mathematical logic before thinking about the possibility of developing their own model.

And is there any evidence that this logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings which isn't already studied as part of human reasoning even exists?

2,500 years of Aristotelian logic. Aristotle, the Stoics, the Scholastic, the school of Port Royal, most thinkers from Descartes to Locke to Hume to Leibniz to Kant have expressed themselves about it, some to question its usefulness but none to question its existence.

And I certainly have plenty of empirical evidence from my own personal experience, most of it compelling.

If you don't think you personally have anything like a logical intuition, so be it, but even there I would suspect you probably don't know where to look. Most people suck at this.

What would a science of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings that is not part of cognitive psychology look like? Can you formulate any hypothesis, even an absurd one, in its context?

I'll have to think about it. No doubt it would be a difficult task, as already evidenced by the fact that no one is doing it. But, merely having the idea that it should be done, and probably urgently, would certainly help focus the minds of our brightest scientists. Sorry, I'm not one, so I can't really help here.

investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

How would it achieve that?

They would have to start by making accurate observations about the performance of human beings, initially to verify that mathematical logic is crap. So they will have to develop their own model from scratch. Scientists have proved themselves rather good at that sort of task, in particular with QM and GR. Maybe the deductive capacity of the brain is more difficult to understand, but I really doubt that.

And if logic wasn't a performance of human beings and a capability of the human mind, how come we would even talk about it? How come even mathematicians would have thought a method of logic was necessary? Boole called it "the Laws of thought". Do you think logic really is nothing else but the formal logic developed by mathematicians? From what basis, if not the human mind and the performance of human beings like the mathematicians themselves, as Frege thought?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now to bend EBs mind a bit.

The Laws Of Conservation from thermodynamics evolved in the 19th century from research and development if steam imagines. They are the foundation of all science and technology.

In texts it is stated that there is no proof they are true, only that no exceptions have been observed.

All things mathematical and scientific in the end are validated by testing and usage over time. What comes to be considered objective develops over time. This is what I got from Popper's Objective Knowledge. There is no and can be no stanrd to judge objectivity in any absolute sense. We have no absolute reference point.

That's all good. Let scientists decide for themselves. Where is your problem with that? What's your argument here?

No argument, I guess. Just ad lib. Mindless ad lib.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

^^^
It is a bit humorous that there are many non-scientists who really believe that science finds absolute truths, scientists know better. I'm not sure if philosophers actually believe philosophy finds absolute truths but some certainly act like they believe they do.

Quote what I said that suggests I "really believe" that science should look for the "absolute truth" of logic...

I asked for an empirical investigation of logic. What is it you don't understand here? English?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^
It is a bit humorous that there are many non-scientists who really believe that science finds absolute truths, scientists know better. I'm not sure if philosophers actually believe philosophy finds absolute truths but some certainly act like they believe they do.

Quote what I said that suggests I "really believe" that science should look for the "absolute truth" of logic...

I asked for an empirical investigation of logic. What is it you don't understand here? English?
EB

I could ask that question of you, you are not the focus of my life. That post wasn't a response to you as is obvious in that I was responding to Steve. I was agreeing with his observation that science does not claim a theory to be true but that it describes observations and that no case has yet been found that falsifies it.

 

[Jokodo]

They would have to start by making accurate observations about the performance of human beings, initially to verify that mathematical logic is crap.

I might get around to responding to the rest of your post eventually, but let's just clarify what you are saying here first. This sounds very much like your starting position is your belief that "mathematical logic is crap", and because you can't quite put your finger on what's supposed to be wrong with it, much less make a stringent argument that it is, you were hoping for "science" to do the heavy lifting for you.

If it's that, any further discussion is futile and you've succinctly demonstrated that your interest is the antithesis of a scientific one. If it isn't, I need you to clarify what this means instead.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They would have to start by making accurate observations about the performance of human beings, initially to verify that mathematical logic is crap.

I might get around to responding to the rest of your post eventually, but let's just clarify what you are saying here first. This sounds very much like your starting position is your belief that "mathematical logic is crap", and because you can't quite put your finger on what's supposed to be wrong with it, much less make a stringent argument that it is, you were hoping for "science" to do the heavy lifting for you.

If it's that, any further discussion is futile and you've succinctly demonstrated that your interest is the antithesis of a scientific one. If it isn't, I need you to clarify what this means instead.

Jokodo, if you want to see what Speakpigeon does, I suggest you take a look at our exchange in this thread (or any of the threads Speakpigeon started on the matter, but I think that one is particularly thorough).

 

[fromderinside]

That's all good. Let scientists decide for themselves. Where is your problem with that? What's your argument here?

No argument, I guess. Just ad lib. Mindless ad lib.
EB

What the hell is that. Is that your way of saying scientists decide the truth of something. They don't. they have evidence. They test it. They produce more evidence. Sometimes evidence changes theory. Scientists don't judge data. They use it and challenge it empirically. At some point one might create a set of operations that others can use to model and challenge often finding more complete explanations.

Best scientific understanding is a consensus around a particular interpretation of what results of experiments mean. We don't know there is global warming. Scientists have data that overwhelmingly supports that interpretation from almost all differing points of investigation.

Try to comprehend. You won't win a scientific argument with Truth criteria.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I could ask that question of you, you are not the focus of my life. That post wasn't a response to you as is obvious in that I was responding to Steve. I was agreeing with his observation that science does not claim a theory to be true but that it describes observations and that no case has yet been found that falsifies it.

No it's not obvious at all, Sir.

What is really obvious instead is that this thread is Speakpigeon's thread and therefore most people will correctly infer you're were in fact making an insulting comment about me.

In effect, a snide remark on your part and you won't own up, obviously. We call that "langue de putte" in French. Much more crude so, sorry, I can't translate.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's all good. Let scientists decide for themselves. Where is your problem with that? What's your argument here?

No argument, I guess. Just ad lib. Mindless ad lib.
EB

What the hell is that. Is that your way of saying scientists decide the truth of something. They don't. they have evidence. They test it. They produce more evidence. Sometimes evidence changes theory. Scientists don't judge data. They use it and challenge it empirically. At some point one might create a set of operations that others can use to model and challenge often finding more complete explanations.

Best scientific understanding is a consensus around a particular interpretation of what results of experiments mean. We don't know there is global warming. Scientists have data that overwhelmingly supports that interpretation from almost all differing points of investigation.

Try to comprehend. You won't win a scientific argument with Truth criteria.

Try to comprehend?! Whoa.

Hey, man, try to comprehend my post first.

This thread is no argument. This thread is about a question: Why still no science of of deductive logic to produce a formal model of it?

I was replying to Steve's implicit suggestion that logic isn't a scientific question. In this context, my remark to "Let scientists decide for themselves" simply and obviously meant that it is up to scientists to decide whether some question is a scientific one.

So, again, what's obvious isn't to you, somehow, and on and on you keep posting irrelevant comments. You've done that for more than ten years now, man! Whoa. That's very impressive but it's also very useless.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

They would have to start by making accurate observations about the performance of human beings, initially to verify that mathematical logic is crap.

I might get around to responding to the rest of your post eventually, but let's just clarify what you are saying here first. This sounds very much like your starting position is your belief that "mathematical logic is crap", and because you can't quite put your finger on what's supposed to be wrong with it, much less make a stringent argument that it is, you were hoping for "science" to do the heavy lifting for you.

If it's that, any further discussion is futile and you've succinctly demonstrated that your interest is the antithesis of a scientific one. If it isn't, I need you to clarify what this means instead.

No, I meant that I'm sure they would find that mathematical logic is crap.

I also know exactly what is wrong with it.

Still, a bit of science would do no harm.

But, it's OK, no science. I can live with it. I hope. I might live very long so maybe there's a risk. But, if no science, I can tell you it will be bad for humanity. So, eventually, science will have to catch up with Speakpigeon and then it might just be too late.

So, what's wrong already about doing the science of logic to produce a proper formal model of deduction?

Yeah, well, you don't know. Obviously. You're not even sure deduction is anything like a human capacity. Whoa.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Jokodo, if you want to see what Speakpigeon does, I suggest you take a look at our exchange in this thread (or any of the threads Speakpigeon started on the matter, but I think that one is particularly thorough).

What is the justification given by mathematicians that the notion of validity as used in mathematical logic would be correct of logic as an objective performance of humans and a capacity of the human mind?

You haven't a bloody clue.
EB

 

[Jokodo]

They would have to start by making accurate observations about the performance of human beings, initially to verify that mathematical logic is crap.

I might get around to responding to the rest of your post eventually, but let's just clarify what you are saying here first. This sounds very much like your starting position is your belief that "mathematical logic is crap", and because you can't quite put your finger on what's supposed to be wrong with it, much less make a stringent argument that it is, you were hoping for "science" to do the heavy lifting for you.

If it's that, any further discussion is futile and you've succinctly demonstrated that your interest is the antithesis of a scientific one. If it isn't, I need you to clarify what this means instead.

No, I meant that I'm sure they would find that mathematical logic is crap.

I understand that you are convinced you know better than all the logicians in the world. I don't understand why you believe anyone in their right minds should take your word on it.

I also know exactly what is wrong with it.

It seemed clear in your head, I'm sure. Yet you're failing to articulate it in a way that others can follow.

When everybody has the same trouble understanding your idea, Occam's Razor suggests that, rather than everybody being stupid, your idea isn't as worked out as you'd like to believe.

Still, a bit of science would do no harm.

But, it's OK, no science. I can live with it. I hope. I might live very long so maybe there's a risk. But, if no science, I can tell you it will be bad for humanity. So, eventually, science will have to catch up with Speakpigeon and then it might just be too late.

So, what's wrong already about doing the science of logic to produce a proper formal model of deduction?

Yeah, well, you don't know. Obviously. You're not even sure deduction is anything like a human capacity. Whoa.
EB

I'm pretty sure deduction is something humans can and do engage in, with some training (explicit or otherwise), though we've long reached the point were computer programs are better at it than even well-trained humans. So is driving (and we've recently reached the point were computer programs are better at it than humans too). This doesn't make deduction (or driving) a "human capacity" in the same sense language and walking are, and it doesn't make the study of "the human capacity of deduction" a meaningful way to learn about the fundamentals of logic anymore than it makes the study of the "human capacity of driving" a meaningful way to learn about the physics of tire friction and air resistance.

 

[Jokodo]

Anyway, if you want a system of logic that conforms to every person's inuitions while also being consistent, you need a new bunch of humans, not a new set of logical primitives. That remains true even if you drop consistency as a requirement - Human intuitions vary.

 

[skepticalbip]

I could ask that question of you, you are not the focus of my life. That post wasn't a response to you as is obvious in that I was responding to Steve. I was agreeing with his observation that science does not claim a theory to be true but that it describes observations and that no case has yet been found that falsifies it.

No it's not obvious at all, Sir.

What is really obvious instead is that this thread is Speakpigeon's thread and therefore most people will correctly infer you're were in fact making an insulting comment about me.

In effect, a snide remark on your part and you won't own up, obviously. We call that "langue de putte" in French. Much more crude so, sorry, I can't translate.

EB

I guess it depends on the world view of the person reading a post. Most assume that the person who wrote the post that was quoted is the person being addressed, not someone not even referred to. Those who think they are the center of the universe, assume that all comments are about them personally.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Anyway, if you want a system of logic that conforms to every person's inuitions while also being consistent, you need a new bunch of humans, not a new set of logical primitives. That remains true even if you drop consistency as a requirement - Human intuitions vary.

No, not logical intuition. It's hardwired.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I could ask that question of you, you are not the focus of my life. That post wasn't a response to you as is obvious in that I was responding to Steve. I was agreeing with his observation that science does not claim a theory to be true but that it describes observations and that no case has yet been found that falsifies it.

No it's not obvious at all, Sir.

What is really obvious instead is that this thread is Speakpigeon's thread and therefore most people will correctly infer you're were in fact making an insulting comment about me.

In effect, a snide remark on your part and you won't own up, obviously. We call that "langue de putte" in French. Much more crude so, sorry, I can't translate.

EB

I guess it depends on the world view of the person reading a post. Most assume that the person who wrote the post that was quoted is the person being addressed, not someone not even referred to. Those who think they are the center of the universe, assume that all comments are about them personally.

LOL. You can't even make sense of simple sentences.

You were ostensibly talking to Steve, sure. Not something you do very often; to start with. But then you were talking about some unspecified people, but in effect, me. Snide remarks.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Anyway, if you want a system of logic that conforms to every person's inuitions while also being consistent, you need a new bunch of humans, not a new set of logical primitives. That remains true even if you drop consistency as a requirement - Human intuitions vary.

No, not logical intuition. It's hardwired.
EB

Intuition is hardwired but that hardwiring is set through experiences. Different people have different experiences.

Intuition is a piss poor basis for determining reality. This is especially true when one is judging events in a different environment than one is accustomed to.

 

[Jokodo]

Anyway, if you want a system of logic that conforms to every person's inuitions while also being consistent, you need a new bunch of humans, not a new set of logical primitives. That remains true even if you drop consistency as a requirement - Human intuitions vary.

No, not logical intuition. It's hardwired.
EB

"intuition" and "hardwired" are not contradicting terms, and you're making a claim without evidence.

You moving very fast from "why isn't science proving this pet peeve of mine for me" to "why isn't there a science of unicorns?"