And the next U.K. Prime Minister will be?

[Speakpigeon]

You are apparently using a form of a boo trapping argument.
Again the wording of your syllogism. Therefore the moon IS made of cheese. There is no logical connection to the premises.

Yes, there is.

No, there isn't.

The connection is that applying the logic rules I used in the argument, the conclusion follows from the premises.

Whoa, man, that's a huge bootstrap!!!

I don't know what you mean by "bootstrapped",

You don't and this in itself shows you really don't get logic.

We all understand what a bootstrap is, though.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I’m paraphrasing and adding, but I was asked why I would follow the rules of logic even when questions linger about justification. It’s an established convention that leaves no one confused when everyone is on the same page. I figure I’m doing well just to know some basics. I’m not out to expose what might be genuine flaws. If I’m going to vote on whether or not I think an argument is valid, I think I’m doing better service to those I speak with to align my vote with what accords with accepted convention.

Sure, I might argue a point here or there (and get my feet wet, so to speak), but as I come to terms with how things are taught, I adjust my positions accordingly.

His logic is taught is my benchmark. I can consider what others are saying, but I think I’m doing good to keep an eye on what extent one deviates from convention.

Here's another reason to support the rules in question: they are truth-preserving. Whenever the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

For example, consider the following rule:

From (P or Q) and ¬P, you deduce Q.

Now, if it turns out that (P or Q) is true and ¬P is true, then P is false, right? But (P or Q) is true, so Q is true. Hence, the rule above preserves truth.

Imagine now that you reason by combining two rules, each of which preserves truth. Well, guess what? The use of the two also preserves truth, because assuming your premises are true, the conclusion after the first step (applying one of the rules that preserve truth) will be true, and then the same happens when you use the second rule. Similarly, if you combine several rules that preserve truth, the result preserves truth.

There are of course different systems that are truth-preserving. But there is one that is the strongest, in the sense that any conclusions that follow from a premise by means of a truth-preserving method also follows from this, strongest method. It's classical logic (there are arguments against is usage in mathematics, for example based on the idea that not all mathematical statements are either true or false; that could lead to a much more interesting discussion if people were interested).

You're talking about something you don't understand. You should stop doing that.
EB

 

[fast]

But WHAT he is talking about, he does understand and apparently understands well.

If WHAT he is talking about is logic, then he understands logic.

If WHAT he is talking about is not logic, then he still understands (and understands well) WHAT he is talking about; of course in that case, the term “logic” wouldn’t apply—since what he is talking about and understands is something we could perhaps call by another name.

But, I’m not convinced that he does not understand logic because of the discord between notions of logic (or validity). He is using a system of logic in accordance to how it is taught. A divergence from that is a sign he does not understand logic.

Even if you could bring the curtains down on this little drama and destroy the very foundation upon which logic is taught in higher education, I’d remind you that a misuse is still a use.

It does not matter that there is a misalignment between competing meanings of validity. There is an underlying systematic, rule based, methodological rationale that in the end guarantees truth-preservation. If I’m looking for a get out of debt plan, I don’t need the best plan available—just a good one that works. There are a variety of logics, and deductive logic as taught in higher education is a damn good one—even if in its refinement over the years, there is a departure from our own subjective intuitions—be they commonly shared or not.

Do you honestly think a few pieced together polls and whatever insight you think that gives, can even come close to putting a dent in the bedrock that deductive logic as taught is structured upon?

 

[Speakpigeon]

If WHAT he is talking about is not logic, then he still understands (and understands well) WHAT he is talking about; of course in that case, the term “logic” wouldn’t apply—since what he is talking about and understands is something we could perhaps call by another name.

There is in fact already another name, it's "mathematical logic".

And it's up to you to understand that the expression "mathematical logic" does not refer to logic.

He is using a system of logic in accordance to how it is taught.

Logic is not taught.

It is intuitive. It is a performance of humans and most likely a capacity of the brain.

What is taught are formal methods.

Whether any particular method is correct of logic is an empirical question, not a bootstrap matter of "following rules".

Even if you could bring the curtains down on this little drama and destroy the very foundation upon which logic is taught in higher education, I’d remind you that a misuse is still a use.

More like abuse. Sex toy abuse. These guys can't even argue anymore. They managed to fuck up their own God-given ability to argue logically. I suspect Satan.

It does not matter that there is a misalignment between competing meanings of validity. There is an underlying systematic, rule based, methodological rationale that in the end guarantees truth-preservation.

Mathematical logic cannot be truth-preserving. Once you assert that an argument with contradictory premises is valid, that's it, you're fucked up as a logician.

Please note that not one mathematician could explain the logic of a proof by contradiction. They just don't get it.

If I’m looking for a get out of debt plan, I don’t need the best plan available—just a good one that works. There are a variety of logics, and deductive logic as taught in higher education is a damn good one—even if in its refinement over the years, there is a departure from our own subjective intuitions—be they commonly shared or not.

Mathematical logic is definitely not "a damn good" logic.

It's not even logic to begin with. It is a very, very poor approximation of logic, like a square inscribed in a circle is an approximation of this circle.

That's not absolutely completely wrong but it's really for little kids.

And a Lego truck isn't a truck. It's toy logic.

And since you can use it to fuck up your own mind, it's sex-toy logic.

Do you honestly think a few pieced together polls and whatever insight you think that gives, can even come close to putting a dent in the bedrock that deductive logic as taught is structured upon?

I'm well aware of the daunting perspective but, hey, there's another way to look at it. Think about it one moment, will you? How would you like it to be able to understand something that comprehensively falsify the dogma of millions of mathematicians in the world alive today?!

I did these polls to sustain my hope by invalidating the argument repeated ad nauseam by mathematicians that you needed to be trained to be good at logic. That's now a patent falsehood and of course this is yet another mindless falsehood these people keep repeating without even understanding what they are talking about.

And these people are definitely not very bright, either. What they say in support of their position is just pathetic. They really don't understand logic and so they come to make extravagant claims. It's of course easy to assume they must know what they are talking about, but it also not that difficult to see they don't.

I also don't remember anyone contradicting my claim that we are all perfectly capable of making deductive inferences without even thinking about it, let alone having a lesson on logic.

And I'm in good health and I have all the time necessary to do that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let's read laughing dog together...

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

What is it you don't understand in what laughing dog says?

Do you think anyone need to be trained in mathematical logic to get it right?
EB

 

[fast]

There is in fact already another name, it's "mathematical logic".

And it's up to you to understand that the expression "mathematical logic" does not refer to logic.

I understand what it is you think. Allow me to expound (not espouse, not expand) so you can see that I see what you see.

There are many things (different kinds of methods for navigating logic) that can fall under the umbrella of logic. But, don’t let the term, “mathematical logic” trick you and weasel it’s way under there to masquerade as something it’s not.

Mathematical logic is not a type of logic at all, but with the word “logic” in the term “mathematical logic”, it’s no wonder why one might be so easily confused. This happens to be a case where the term itself does an injustice in describing or capturing what it refers to, and it certainly doesn’t refer to logic.

How could it? Before I continue, let me warn readers again that I am not espousing a view—sharing it as if to announce it as the perspective I hold. It’s not a ballon in need of air or a rubberband in need of stretching—so I’m not expanding anything either. I’m expounding on the topic in such a way merely to articulate a rehash of Speakpigeon’s view.

So, why isn’t mathematical logic any sort of actual logic? It’s not so much because mathematical logic somewhat deviates from what logic is. The key word there is “somewhat.” Mathematical logic deviates from logic to such a grand degree that it doesn’t even remotely resemble it anymore. A little tinkering here or there to shave off some rough edges wouldn’t be a catalyst that drives you to hold the position you do. You hold the position you do because what mathematicians have done is so obnoxious to our sensibilities. Mathematical logic (what a disastrously misleading term it has) is the monster spawned by the non-thinking medaling of mathematicians to such a frankensteinish degree that the very thing they are espousing as logic is anything but that.

And to top it off, they are oblivious to the entire shenanigan-driven affair. Why, because they tow the line. Teachers teach them and they gullibly accept it. Talk about taking candy from babies! No one is questioning anything, and when one takes someone to task, they divert their responses in such fashion that it makes you wonder if they understand the language being used to prod them into giving a straight-forward answer.

All of that understanding —and I still disagree. Damn my head is hard, I guess.

If we were talking about abstract objects not being objects, mental objects not being objects, or imaginary objects not being objects, I’d be more supportive, but the way I see it, and with all the gusto behind your reasoning, I still have it in my mind that it belongs right there under the umbrella it is.

Oh, I most certainly agree that a toy car is not a type of car; it’s a type of toy, but mathematical logic is a kind of logic—not the kind that is so not logic at all but an actual kind of logic that belongs in the field of logic.

I’m in South Carolina
I’m not in South Carolina
So, of course I’m right about this

That’s logical. Stupid as fuck maybe, but logical. It’s logical (again) because there’s a method to the madness. The logic isn’t even flawed. There’s an underlying methodology, and it can be trusted. The argument is valid. Not all premises are true. The conclusion is unsound. The stepping stones exist and so there is logic in our midst.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I’m paraphrasing and adding, but I was asked why I would follow the rules of logic even when questions linger about justification. It’s an established convention that leaves no one confused when everyone is on the same page. I figure I’m doing well just to know some basics. I’m not out to expose what might be genuine flaws. If I’m going to vote on whether or not I think an argument is valid, I think I’m doing better service to those I speak with to align my vote with what accords with accepted convention.

Sure, I might argue a point here or there (and get my feet wet, so to speak), but as I come to terms with how things are taught, I adjust my positions accordingly.

His logic is taught is my benchmark. I can consider what others are saying, but I think I’m doing good to keep an eye on what extent one deviates from convention.

Here's another reason to support the rules in question: they are truth-preserving. Whenever the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

For example, consider the following rule:

From (P or Q) and ¬P, you deduce Q.

Now, if it turns out that (P or Q) is true and ¬P is true, then P is false, right? But (P or Q) is true, so Q is true. Hence, the rule above preserves truth.

Imagine now that you reason by combining two rules, each of which preserves truth. Well, guess what? The use of the two also preserves truth, because assuming your premises are true, the conclusion after the first step (applying one of the rules that preserve truth) will be true, and then the same happens when you use the second rule. Similarly, if you combine several rules that preserve truth, the result preserves truth.

There are of course different systems that are truth-preserving. But there is one that is the strongest, in the sense that any conclusions that follow from a premise by means of a truth-preserving method also follows from this, strongest method. It's classical logic (there are arguments against is usage in mathematics, for example based on the idea that not all mathematical statements are either true or false; that could lead to a much more interesting discussion if people were interested).

You're talking about something you don't understand. You should stop doing that.
EB

No, you are talking about something you don't understand, as the contradictions in your position clearly show - as well as your false statements about what you called "mathematical logic". I'm afraid my vacation is over, so I no longer have the time to debunk your position so many times, but here is a sample.

Still, here's more about how you are wrong:

Mathematical logic cannot be truth-preserving. Once you assert that an argument with contradictory premises is valid, that's it, you're fucked up as a logician.

Obviously, a rule that says that everything follows from a contradiction does not preclude preservation of truth, since a contradiction cannot be truth. A rule is truth-preserving if it preserves truth, so it guarantees that the conclusion is true provided that the premises are true. A contradiction is never true, so the fact that everything follows from a contradiction is not a problem for truth-preservation.

Of course, the rule that
From (P or Q) and ¬P, you deduce Q.

Now, if it turns out that (P or Q) is true and ¬P is true, then P is false, right? But (P or Q) is true, so Q is true. Hence, the rule above preserves truth.

Similarly, the rule that from P you deduce P or Q preserves truth.

Please note that not one mathematician could explain the logic of a proof by contradiction. They just don't get it.

Pleast note that that is just one of the several instances in which you incurred contradiction. Purely for example, here you accept an argument with an inconsistent set of premises. Moreover, you accept an argument in which one of the premises implies the negation of another. Obviously, an argumnent in which one of the premises implies the negation of the other premise is an argument in which the conjunction of the premises is a contradiction. Again, do you understand that you accepted an argument such that the conjunction of the premises is a contradiction? No, of course you fail to realize that you did that, so you deny it. But you did just that, as I have repeatedly explained.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It’s logical (again) because there’s a method to the madness.

You are confusing logical and logic. Methods are logical because conceived in a logical way. But I couldn't care less about that because logically valid plus false premises give false conclusion.

My point is that methods are not logic.

Logic isn't a method.

People invent methods and they do it usually from experience with a bit of hopefully logical reasoning but mostly it's experience.

Among other things, Aristotle proposed a method of logic. Not logic itself. A method of logic. Irrespective of the merit of it, it was crucial in the fact that for the first time in human history it identified logic. For us. Because, however incredible that is, millions of people can go about their lives for centuries and indeed millennia without ever noticing that they have a logical capability and that they do, routinely, logical inferences without thinking about it because their brain does logical inferences for them.

So, it's not because there is a method, a logical method, that it is logic. Whoever claims to have a method of logic should provide the justification that this method is correct, i.e. that it is a model of logic.

There is no justification that any of the methods used in mathematical logic would be correct. Articulate mathematicians, mostly philosophers in fact, people like Tarski, Russell, Quine, never articulated any good reason to accept mathematical logic as a model of logic. They didn't even try. They expedited the subject in a few cursory lines. We spend a lot of time to argue about this. They didn't. They assumed a few basic hypotheses, for sure very reasonable, but mostly just wrong. And their followers don't have a brain they could use to consider the issue to begin with and so took these people on trust and here we are.

So, yes, they have a method, and it's logical, but who cares? The premises are false. Not just one or two. Most of what mathematicians assume about logic is wrong. They think they understand proof by contradiction: Wrong. They think there's just one possibility for the material implication: Wrong. They think the Scholastic were wrong: No, they were not. The think Aristotle's logic is limited: Wrong. There is so much they don't understand, it's just staggering, and yet, here they are, talking the talk as if the experts on logic, pompous, arrogant, dismissive, incurious.

Also, I didn't always thought that way. I started out only a few years ago with a very favourable opinion of them. I had to realise the hard way that they are just intellectual workers, mindlessly repeating all their lives the little they have learnt at school.

Nobody cares that there should be a method if the method is wrong. Logical, sure, logic, no.

And of course, once mathematicians invented their own flawed method of logic, they apparently started to think likewise. They successfully fucked their own mind. Read Tarski. And intelligent, articulate, well-read true intellectual. Unfortunately, fo one hundred thinkers, only one produces value. He didn't. Instead of looking critically at the foundation of mathematical logic, he spend his time "deriving". Did you notice this word? Mathematicians don't reason logically. They derive the consequences from the axioms using rules. Not logic. They use rules. A computer could do it. Methodical, sure. But who cares?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Mathematical logic is under he heading of abstract algebra. It is called Boolean Algebra. See the thread Aristotle vs Modem Logic.

Boolean Algebra is an axiomatic logic system It does not have the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.

Boolean is the common logic system in engineering. The logic in your computer processor is defined in Boolean terms.. There is an international standard for the electronic symbols that re[present Boolean logic operators.

The wiki page 'list of logic symbols' show some of the Boolean equivalent to formal logic. AND, OR, NOT and so on.


There is a fundamental principle in Boolean Algebra that all logic can be expressed using only AND(&), OR(|), NOT(!).

Logic is also developed in computer science. Register Transfer Logic. Something called VHDL.

If you think logic is only Aristotle and his ancient text, and syllogisms you are extremely narrow minded.

 

[Speakpigeon]

the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.

Could you please give examples?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you think logic is only Aristotle and his ancient text, and syllogisms you are extremely narrow minded.

How can you say something so stupid?!

This is yet another idiotic misrepresentation of what I say.

I specified what I meant by logic:

Why no science of logic?

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

You've seen this post since you replied to it, here:

Why no science of logic?

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

Math and science are consider different disciplines. Science deals with physical processes. Science looks at the biological process of the brain that could give rise to logic.

Since the rise of computers logic has moved from philosophy to computer science, which is considered a separate discipline from math, although there is overlap.

It is heavy reading, you could try to read Knuth's books especially Semi Numerical Algorithms. The focus and attention is there, but it is has evolved far beyond Aristotle and his syllogisms. Classical logic from philosophy has little direct use.

There are several applied forms of symbolic logic, one being Boolean Algebra with a standard set of electrical symbols which I am familiar with.


BNF is used to describe the logic behind each instruction in a processor instruction ire set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus–Naur_form

Depending on what you work on symbolic and formal logic are common.
There is symbol;ic language to describe computer languages, part of that covered under Theory Of Computaion.

See?

You are a complete moron.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.

Could you please give examples?
EB

If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.

Could you please give examples?
EB

If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.

I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.

I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
EB

I guess Boolean logic applied to real problems can not compare to made up 'improved squid' arguments. Much too challenging for me.

As you repeatedly claim something is wrong with mathematical logic I would have thought you would jump right in to the Boolean thread and show me exactly how it is all wrong..

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.

I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
EB

I guess Boolean logic applied to real problems can not compare to made up 'improved squid' arguments. Much too challenging for me.

In other words, you made a claim you couldn't support with any evidence.

I guess no one will be surprised here.

As you repeatedly claim something is wrong with mathematical logic I would have thought you would jump right in to the Boolean thread and show me exactly how it is all wrong..

I would have if you'd started by asking me "what's wrong with it?".

But you never did, and indeed still don't, so why should I do it?

Further, I plainly explained what is wrong with it. I even conducted polls to show how mathematical logic was at odds with most people's logic. I explained how mathematical logic wasn't founded on empirical evidence. I asked for a justification of mathematical logic and couldn't get one. But it seems you sort of can't get yourself to consider what people say at face value.

Given that you constantly misrepresent my views, I guess you must have some kind of psychological condition, and there's nothing I can do to treat that. Either you understand what I say or you don't, and a long experience here shows that you don't understand much of what I say, if anything at all.

You just mindlessly repeat misrepresentation after misrepresentation, irrelevance after irrelevance, copy whole Wiki pages, as if anyone cared, you're just a waste of time and very few posters took the time to reply to you. See how your threads are popular here. Most people would sort of step back and try to understand what's wrong with them but, no, you keep going, oblivious of whatever people can say.
EB