What is logic?

[Speakpigeon]

The only notion of logic to be discussed here is the one we can trace back to the early Greek philosophers.

Like I said, you might have told people you were limiting the conversation to your sand box.

I believe I said exactly what was required, i.e. that it was about logic:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.

I'm open to discussing heterodox views of logic but I'm not interested in discussing the art of dog shampooing just because you insist on calling that 'logic'.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Like I said, you might have told people you were limiting the conversation to your sand box.

I believe I said exactly what was required, i.e. that it was about logic:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.

I'm open to discussing heterodox views of logic but I'm not interested in discussing the art of dog shampooing just because you insist on calling that 'logic'.
EB

All you have said here is that you are not open to anything you haven't heard before.

Don't worry, it is a common trait.

 

[bilby]

I believe I said exactly what was required, i.e. that it was about logic:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.

I'm open to discussing heterodox views of logic but I'm not interested in discussing the art of dog shampooing just because you insist on calling that 'logic'.
EB

All you have said here is that you are not open to anything you haven't heard before.

Don't worry, it is a common trait.

I'd pay attention to this, if I were you, EB.

In this one respect, untermensche is an acknowledged expert, with years of experience.

 

[untermensche]

Yes you offer moral support, but no intellectual support.

He wants to talk about things he has already heard many times.

For what purpose?

To grow in no way?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm open to discussing heterodox views of logic but I'm not interested in discussing the art of dog shampooing just because you insist on calling that 'logic'.
EB

All you have said here is that you are not open to anything you haven't heard before.

Don't worry, it is a common trait.

What do you think "I'm open to discussing heterodox views of logic" means?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

All you have said here is that you are not open to anything you haven't heard before.

Don't worry, it is a common trait.

I'd pay attention to this, if I were you, EB.

This is painful to watch, isn't it?

But I have heard it before, over and over again, so I guess I must be open to it. So says the oracle.

[

In this one respect, untermensche is an acknowledged expert, with years of experience.

He is sort of preaching by example. And it's very effective as nobody would want to appear so utterly immune to reason.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

He wants to talk about things he has already heard many times.

For what purpose?

To grow in no way?

It's good rhetoric to make both the questions and the answers. There's a Socratic feel about it.

But you'd have to get the answers right and you don't.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I'd pay attention to this, if I were you, EB.

This is painful to watch, isn't it?

But I have heard it before, over and over again, so I guess I must be open to it. So says the oracle.

[

In this one respect, untermensche is an acknowledged expert, with years of experience.

He is sort of preaching by example. And it's very effective as nobody would want to appear so utterly immune to reason.
EB

2 twits jerking each other off.

Talk about painful to watch!!

 

[untermensche]

He wants to talk about things he has already heard many times.

For what purpose?

To grow in no way?

It's good rhetoric to make both the questions and the answers. There's a Socratic feel about it.

But you'd have to get the answers right and you don't.
EB

You are not capable of judging what is right or wrong.

If you want to understand some concept you don't start after it has been built upon for generations.

You try to get to the roots, to the basics.

You merely ask: Why on earth would such a concept even arise?

And of course my speculations on that question will not satisfy you.

You have to come up something for yourself.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's good rhetoric to make both the questions and the answers. There's a Socratic feel about it.

But you'd have to get the answers right and you don't.
EB

You are not capable of judging what is right or wrong.

If you want to understand some concept you don't start after it has been built upon for generations.

You try to get to the roots, to the basics.

You merely ask: Why on earth would such a concept even arise?

And of course my speculations on that question will not satisfy you.

You have to come up something for yourself.

You've no idea what I'm doing but still you want to pretend you do.

So, when I want to discuss a difficult concept with other people, first I make sure we'd all be talking about the same thing.

And, surprise, surprise, you are talking about something else entirely (I still don't know what exactly). But you've been unable to explain how what you call 'logic' would relate to the kind of logic investigated either by the Ancient Greeks or modern logicians. Some logicians work on what are called 'deviant logics', yet yours don't seem to even belong to that exotic category. So yours is not exotic, it's not 'deviant', it's just something else entirely, something so weird you can't even explain what it is.

Also if I want to understand some concept, I look at how it's used by other people today, ordinary people and specialists, and how it was used in the past. And then I compare to how I use it myself. Apparently you haven't done that. I highly recommend the procedure.

As to "getting to the roots", I've done that but I will guess that you mean something else entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if for you it involved digging up a tree in your garden.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You've no idea what I'm doing but still you want to pretend you do.

You're not doing anything.

You're refusing to engage. Refusing to explain anything.

Pretending like you have some secret that isn't old news.

But you've been unable to explain how what you call 'logic' would relate to the kind of logic investigated either by the Ancient Greeks or modern logicians.

You refused to engage.

The failure was not because I did not try.

I merely asked you to defend a statement.

You felt it was beneath you and irrelevant. So you refused to engage in my little game.

There are some horses you cannot even lead to water.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're not doing anything.

You're refusing to engage. Refusing to explain anything.

You refused to engage.

I merely asked you to defend a statement.

You felt it was beneath you and irrelevant. So you refused to engage in my little game.

The mere fact that you can elect to forge such a all story in the face of the evidence that's readily available to all is properly bewildering.

You just have to look at our exchange to see that I did engage.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No.

You proposed some nonsense that keys could just vanish and refused to back it up with more than the worthless "I am not certain they can't vanish".

If we accept nonsense like that then we can make no discriminations in terms of knowledge.

You failed.

Try harder next time.