What is logic?

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so give me a realistic example of such a process, real or invented.
EB

One mind can't do it.

It takes two or more minds engaging towards practical goals.

How do we kill that rabbit?

If you do this then the rabbit will do that.

Then if I do this the rabbit will do that.

Then you can kill it.

You see how "if/then" conceptions flow from this kind of thing.

Hmm.

Ok, I submit two claims I could try to defend and you can choose which one you want to argue against:

1. Science is fundamentally irrational

2. Science is fundamentally rational

Please note I might be too busy to reply for a week or two but I'll come round eventually.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Please give a short description of whatever it is that you think deserves to be called logic.
EB

It's exceedingly complicated. I remember a logic lecture at uni and my brain was bleeding through most of it.

Just read up on axioms. All axioms rest on logic. So they have to start by defining, and proving, logic itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Any simple answer will be flawed

So you don't have any personal opinion or view on the matter?
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you don't have any personal opinion or view on the matter?

In my case it's more of a question of trying to keep up than have an opinion. But I do think a lot of people have opinions on this matter that probably shouldn't

 

[untermensche]

Ok, I submit two claims I could try to defend and you can choose which one you want to argue against:

1. Science is fundamentally irrational

2. Science is fundamentally rational

The scientific method is a product of the give and take I spoke of.

It is rational in as much as it's conclusions can be defended.

Bringing us back to my original point.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, I submit two claims I could try to defend and you can choose which one you want to argue against:

The scientific method is a product of the give and take I spoke of.

There's nothing special about science that non-scientists don't do in the course of their lives.

It is rational in as much as it's conclusions can be defended.

It's always the appearance of a good defense, not any effecitve one.

Bringing us back to my original point.

Yeah, it's circular. You always have to go back to some irrational foundation and science is no exception.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The scientific method is a product of the give and take I spoke of.

There's nothing special about science that non-scientists don't do in the course of their lives.

Is that a question?

A lot of what non-scientists are doing is because scientists discovered the best methods.

A key feature of science is scientists publish their results to create a body of research for others to build upon.

If you discover something by yourself and never tell anyone about it you are not doing science.

It is rational in as much as it's conclusions can be defended.

It's always the appearance of a good defense, not any effecitve one.

Having a rover sending back information about soil composition on Mars is evidence of effective information.

Yeah, it's circular. You always have to go back to some irrational foundation and science is no exception.
EB

It's one step. Can't be circular.

Arguments must be defended. That is logic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's nothing special about science that non-scientists don't do in the course of their lives.

Is that a question?

A lot of what non-scientists are doing is because scientists discovered the best methods.

A lot of what scientists do is because non-scientists discovered the best methods. For example, philosophers introduced the idea of advertising ("publishing") widely their views and teaching followers, debating other people's view publicly etc.

A key feature of science is scientists publish their results to create a body of research for others to build upon.

That's what civilisation has always done anyway. People talk ("publish") and sort out the best way to do things.

If you discover something by yourself and never tell anyone about it you are not doing science.

I'm sure there are unknown scientists who would disagree.

It is rational in as much as it's conclusions can be defended.

It's always the appearance of a good defense, not any effecitve one.

Having a rover sending back information about soil composition on Mars is evidence of effective information.

Journalists do that from war zones and we all write home to tell news. No big deal.

Yeah, it's circular. You always have to go back to some irrational foundation and science is no exception.
EB

It's one step. Can't be circular.

Arguments must be defended. That is logic.

I don't see any logic in there. Only a string of contrary statements all purporting to be truthful.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Is that a question?

A lot of what non-scientists are doing is because scientists discovered the best methods.

A lot of what scientists do is because non-scientists discovered the best methods. For example, philosophers introduced the idea of advertising ("publishing") widely their views and teaching followers, debating other people's view publicly etc.

A key feature of science is scientists publish their results to create a body of research for others to build upon.

That's what civilisation has always done anyway. People talk ("publish") and sort out the best way to do things.

Civilization doesn't do anything.

It gives some humans the freedom to do things. It makes slaves of others.

And a tiny minority of humans have given us science.

The majority have always preferred religion. And in the US still do.

If you discover something by yourself and never tell anyone about it you are not doing science.

I'm sure there are unknown scientists who would disagree.

I'm sure your knowledge of what unknown people believe is extensive, but science is a collaborative process, not something a single person does and keeps to themselves.

Having a rover sending back information about soil composition on Mars is evidence of effective information.

Journalists do that from war zones and we all write home to tell news. No big deal.

Satellite communication IS a big deal. It is evidence that the science behind it is very effective.

Arguments must be defended. That is logic.

I don't see any logic in there. Only a string of contrary statements all purporting to be truthful.
EB

One has to first be able to defend their arguments to be able to see the resultant logic that arises from doing it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see any logic in there. Only a string of contrary statements all purporting to be truthful.
EB

One has to first be able to defend their arguments to be able to see the resultant logic that arises from doing it.

That's kind of viciously circular.

So, basically, you don't know how to explain what you think is logic but pretend you know what it is and then you don't know how to get me to understand.

I think I'll stick to my own unoriginal view and I'll go put some flowers on Aristotle's tomb near that of Jim's in the Père Lachaise in Paris.
EB

 

[untermensche]

One has to first be able to defend their arguments to be able to see the resultant logic that arises from doing it.

That's kind of viciously circular.

So, basically, you don't know how to explain what you think is logic but pretend you know what it is and then you don't know how to get me to understand.

I think I'll stick to my own unoriginal view and I'll go put some flowers on Aristotle's tomb near that of Jim's in the Père Lachaise in Paris.
EB

I'm saying of you want to understand you will be required to do some work.

Logical thinking is something humans are capable of, like eating with a fork.

A trick, nothing innate.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's kind of viciously circular.

So, basically, you don't know how to explain what you think is logic but pretend you know what it is and then you don't know how to get me to understand.

I think I'll stick to my own unoriginal view and I'll go put some flowers on Aristotle's tomb near that of Jim's in the Père Lachaise in Paris.
EB

I'm saying of you want to understand you will be required to do some work.

No. This is a forum. Either you think you can explain and you're welcome to do that or you can't explain and I have other things to do than to read the runes

Logical thinking is something humans are capable of, like eating with a fork.

That's what you would need to support.

A trick, nothing innate.

I doubt very much that nothing at all would be innate in logic as in anything the brain does. The question is to specify in what way it is innate and in what way it isn't.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I'm saying of you want to understand you will be required to do some work.

No. This is a forum. Either you think you can explain and you're welcome to do that or you can't explain and I have other things to do than to read the runes

This forum is what we make of it.

Believe it or not interaction is possible.

Logical thinking is something humans are capable of, like eating with a fork.

That's what you would need to support.

If I use you as an example I have evidence logical thinking, supporting thoughts, is difficult.

So we have at least some evidence it is not innate.

A trick, nothing innate.

I doubt very much that nothing at all would be innate in logic as in anything the brain does. The question is to specify in what way it is innate and in what way it isn't.
EB

There may be some relation to the language capacity.

But I think that is only what makes it possible, with work, hard work.

Not anything that makes it inevitable.

Humans with language have all kinds of absurd irrational superstitions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing in there I'm afraid. You're not even making sense.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Nothing in there I'm afraid. You're not even making sense.
EB

Your opinion is noted.

As absurd as it is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing in there I'm afraid. You're not even making sense.
EB

Your opinion is noted.

As absurd as it is.

My view closely follows that of the tradition from the Ancient Greeks so I can claim that I'm using the word 'logic' like most people use it.

You, however, seem to have a notion of logic which is entirely your own, which raises the question of whether you are even talking about logic at all. So, for the sake of completeness, can you tell us if you know of any intellectual figure who supported the same view as yours?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your opinion is noted.

As absurd as it is.

My view closely follows that of the tradition from the Ancient Greeks so I can claim that I'm using the word 'logic' like most people use it.

You, however, seem to have a notion of logic which is entirely your own, which raises the question of whether you are even talking about logic at all. So, for the sake of completeness, can you tell us if you know of any intellectual figure who supported the same view as yours?
EB

Oh.

I thought you wanted outside the sand box thinking.

Sorry.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My view closely follows that of the tradition from the Ancient Greeks so I can claim that I'm using the word 'logic' like most people use it.

You, however, seem to have a notion of logic which is entirely your own, which raises the question of whether you are even talking about logic at all. So, for the sake of completeness, can you tell us if you know of any intellectual figure who supported the same view as yours?
EB

Oh.

I thought you wanted outside the sand box thinking.

Sorry.

Of course I was also interested in original views but not so original that we now talk of something else than logic.

And still you don't answer the question.

For someone who wants to argue that logic is in defending your views that's a bit rich.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Oh.

I thought you wanted outside the sand box thinking.

Sorry.

Of course I was also interested in original views but not so original that we now talk of something else than logic.

And still you don't answer the question.

For someone who wants to argue that logic is in defending your views that's a bit rich.
EB

You seem to demand some pedigree for ideas. Absolute nonsense. Just a way to avoid the black and white right in front of you.

To understand any concept you have to try to figure out its genesis. How does this notion even arise?

Nobody has a clue how the notion of "logic" arose.

Again, where are my keys?

Some answers are "logical" and some are not.

Some answers conform to the observed world and some do not. In some way at least one definition of "logic" has within it "conforming to the observed world".

Along the same line, figuring out how something works, figuring out it's "logic", is seeing what is happening in the observed world.

The most you could ever get are hints and impressions of how the concept of "logic" arose. You will never get the answer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oops...

 

[Speakpigeon]

You seem to demand some pedigree for ideas. Absolute nonsense. Just a way to avoid the black and white right in front of you.

No I don't. You seem particularly inept at understanding what people say, let alone what they mean.

I asked you for intellectual figures references to make sure you had none and that even you couldn't trace the notion of logic you yourself advocate to any known notion. So, in effect you are talking about something else than what most people mean by the word 'logic'.

And if not, then please specify any connection.

To understand any concept you have to try to figure out its genesis. How does this notion even arise?

Notions arise inside the minds of people so we're not going to know or understand much about that. Yet, people tend to communicate about the notions they have and this gives us some data on those notions. The only notion of logic we know of can be traced back to early Greek philosophers. Anything that's unrelated to what these people discussed would be irrelevant and that's how I see your own notion as you tried to present it.

Nobody has a clue how the notion of "logic" arose.

The only notion of logic to be discussed here is the one we can trace back to the early Greek philosophers. Based on that, logic is the art of reasoning and nothing else, from the Greek 'logike', as per the Oxford dictionary. If you want to discuss a different notion of logic then start you own thread.

Again, where are my keys?

Some answers are "logical" and some are not.

Some answers conform to the observed world and some do not. In some way at least one definition of "logic" has within it "conforming to the observed world".

Conforming how? Logic is expressed linguistically or even within a thought, how could that be conform to the observed world?

Your notion seems to be unrelated to the Greeks' one. Start your own thread.

Along the same line, figuring out how something works, figuring out it's "logic", is seeing what is happening in the observed world.

I would call that science, not logic.

The most you could ever get are hints and impressions of how the concept of "logic" arose. You will never get the answer.

Again I didn't ask the question of how logic arose.

I asked what you think deserve to be called 'logic' according to you. I still don't know what you think but that now seems irrelevant anyway.
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.