Why no science of logic?

[Gun Nut]

There is no science of logic.

Yeah, I know. Why?
EB

Because of what steve_bank and I both have been saying. It seems you want Logic (with a capitol L) to be some property of the universe that humans are in tune to... it's not. Logic is a consequence of math, and math is the model describing how things like neural networks (brains and AI) work. If what others understand doesn't "even make sense", then the issue may be with your openness to learning... which poses the question, "why are you here asking the question"?

 

[ronburgundy]

There is a great deal of scientific research on human being capacity for logical reasoning, both formal deduction and induction.
It occurs within the fields of Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science (which is mostly cognitive psychology combined with philosophy, computer sciencend neuroscience).

The Wiki on the Psychology of reasoning is a good entry point that gives a number of the more cited papers.

Here is a review paper by some well regarded researchers in the field.

Sure, but these people are only interested, apparently, in eliciting the psychology of logic. What they do is useful and scientific but they're not going to try and produce a formal logic to model logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human being".

I am unclear exactly what you are trying to say here. Science answers questions about why observable events occur. Exactly what observable event (i.e., what human behavior) are you wanting science to try and explain. Rather than talk in abstractions, give a everyday example of the human behavior you think science could explain but is not trying to.

And if they are studying "formal deduction", they are already off target. Formal deduction is a by-product of logic. People essentially do informal deductions and they do it all the time.

They study informal reasoning as well, but the study of deduction is more about identifying whether most untrained people can identify valid from invalid logical structures. The evidence suggest the most people cannot and that their errors are not random but rather biased by whether or not their prior beliefs are consistent with the conclusion, even when they explicitly told to ignore those beliefs and told that an argument being valid or invalid has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is true or false.

 

[steve_bank]

After some thought I will restate.

Ancient Zog said to his cavemates 'If it is raing 0ut tomorrow and I go outside it wI will get wet'. Zog's mates grunt in understanding.

Logic developed as part of language without any formal structure.

Along came Aristotle who gets credit for a formalization, a sxcintifc consistent quantification.

Today all the expressions of a formal system like formal logic symbology and Bollean Algebra ARE the result of sientic investigations into logic.

Before digital logic elevators were controlled by what is a called relay logic.

Scientific investigation spurred by complex relay systems led to formalizations. Quine band McClusky are well known names in electronics.

The nature of logic is philosophy. The wiring of the brain that gives rise to logic is science. Animals clearly have the ability to reason and apply logical thinking. Brains are different, but the are the same general model.
There was Turing and his algorithm machine, logic but not classical logic.

Old Zog used informal logic. The simple truth table for a logic function like AND or OR is a scientific quantification of log in a sense.

So, you claim there is no scientific approach to logic is unfounded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine–McCluskey_algorithm

If you were a scince professor writing a gtant proposal to investigate logic scinetificaly how wold you do it.

Imagine I'm a wealthy guy who funds research projects for starving professors. I have a staff of scintisrs on call to evaluate proposals. Convince us there is a problem to address and how you will investigat

1. What is the problem in detail you want to address. What are the issues, being specific.

2. Outline your reaerch proposal. XChart the course of your investigation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems you want Logic (with a capitol L) to be some property of the universe that humans are in tune to...

???

I said "logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".

Please read before commenting. And if you don't understand what you're reading, please abstain from making silly comments.

Logic is a consequence of math,

Whoa. The phenomenal absurdity.

So, according to you, no maths, no logic? You're kidding, right?

and math is the model describing how things like neural networks (brains and AI) work.

This again is a massive absurdity. Even cognitive scientists are still at a loss to describe properly any form of reasoning and they are proper scientists. How do you reckon mathematicians managed to solve the question, around 1900, without doing any science at all, without even the proper scientific outlook to consider the question as an empirical one.

If what others understand doesn't "even make sense", then the issue may be with your openness to learning... which poses the question, "why are you here asking the question"?

I didn't say that what you understood didn't make sense. I said that what you said didn't make sense and I explained why in detail.

Please, ignore me if you can't make sensible comments.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

After some thought I will restate.

Ancient Zog said to his cavemates 'If it is raing 0ut tomorrow and I go outside it wI will get wet'. Zog's mates grunt in understanding.

Logic developed as part of language without any formal structure.

Along came Aristotle who gets credit for a formalization, a sxcintifc consistent quantification.

Today all the expressions of a formal system like formal logic symbology and Bollean Algebra ARE the result of sientic investigations into logic.

Before digital logic elevators were controlled by what is a called relay logic.

Scientific investigation spurred by complex relay systems led to formalizations. Quine band McClusky are well known names in electronics.

The nature of logic is philosophy. The wiring of the brain that gives rise to logic is science. Animals clearly have the ability to reason and apply logical thinking. Brains are different, but the are the same general model.
There was Turing and his algorithm machine, logic but not classical logic.

Old Zog used informal logic. The simple truth table for a logic function like AND or OR is a scientific quantification of log in a sense.

So, you claim there is no scientific approach to logic is unfounded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine–McCluskey_algorithm

If you were a scince professor writing a gtant proposal to investigate logic scinetificaly how wold you do it.

Imagine I'm a wealthy guy who funds research projects for starving professors. I have a staff of scintisrs on call to evaluate proposals. Convince us there is a problem to address and how you will investigat

1. What is the problem in detail you want to address. What are the issues, being specific.

2. Outline your reaerch proposal. XChart the course of your investigation.

No, I asked a simple question and you don't know the answer. Full stop.

Wait, though, it's also true you don't even understand the question to begin with.

Well, same thing.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am unclear exactly what you are trying to say here. Science answers questions about why observable events occur. Exactly what observable event (i.e., what human behavior) are you wanting science to try and explain. Rather than talk in abstractions, give a everyday example of the human behavior you think science could explain but is not trying to.

As I say in my first post, my question is about logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".

So, the "observable" would have to be logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".

So, you know, things humans do, deductive arguments, judgements of validity, valid inferences, the mathematicians' ability to agree collectively on what are the logical consequences of a set of axioms, the ability of scientists to infer validly from facts and theoretical assumptions, etc. etc. etc. etc. And 2,500 years after Aristotle, Aristotelian logic is still understood and agreed on as valid. And of course, cognitive scientists are investigating deductive reasoning and the deductive capabilities of human subjects.

They study informal reasoning as well, but the study of deduction is more about identifying whether most untrained people can identify valid from invalid logical structures. The evidence suggest the most people cannot and that their errors are not random but rather biased by whether or not their prior beliefs are consistent with the conclusion, even when they explicitly told to ignore those beliefs and told that an argument being valid or invalid has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is true or false.

Sure, and most people can't run a marathon.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Question—Why is there no scince of logic?

Answer—Logic evolved with language, And, Or, if then, and so on. This predated Aristotle. In the west Aristotle is credited with objectively quantifying logic, although he would have had predecessors. Over the last 200 years ‘scientific logic’ has developed Boolean algebra, fuzzy logic, Turing Machines (computers), and the rest.

There is a wealth of ‘scientific’ inquiry into logic. You refuse to acknowledge that you do not have a case. Most illogical.

Refute my answer with dare I say it, ‘LOGIC’. Perhaps a syllogism. P1,P2…Therefor there is no scientific enquiry into logic.

What exactly would science of logic entail? What aspects? Given your posts on multiple threads it appears what you are saying is mathematics is on sky ground and the logic used is not ‘scientific’.

You know what they say. He who lives by the syllogism dies by the syllogism.

 

[skepticalbip]

Question—Why is there no scince of logic?

Answer—Logic evolved with language, And, Or, if then, and so on. This predated Aristotle. In the west Aristotle is credited with objectively quantifying logic, although he would have had predecessors. Over the last 200 years ‘scientific logic’ has developed Boolean algebra, fuzzy logic, Turing Machines (computers), and the rest.

There is a wealth of ‘scientific’ inquiry into logic. You refuse to acknowledge that you do not have a case. Most illogical.

Refute my answer with dare I say it, ‘LOGIC’. Perhaps a syllogism. P1,P2…Therefor there is no scientific enquiry into logic.

What exactly would science of logic entail? What aspects? Given your posts on multiple threads it appears what you are saying is mathematics is on sky ground and the logic used is not ‘scientific’.

You know what they say. He who lives by the syllogism dies by the syllogism.

I would think that the answer would be as simple as if no one is studying it then no one thinks the particular aspect Speakpigeon wants studied is important enough. Anyone with the credentials could easily find other subjects more interesting.

I tend to like Occam's Razor.

 

[steve_bank]

Question—Why is there no scince of logic?

Answer—Logic evolved with language, And, Or, if then, and so on. This predated Aristotle. In the west Aristotle is credited with objectively quantifying logic, although he would have had predecessors. Over the last 200 years ‘scientific logic’ has developed Boolean algebra, fuzzy logic, Turing Machines (computers), and the rest.

There is a wealth of ‘scientific’ inquiry into logic. You refuse to acknowledge that you do not have a case. Most illogical.

Refute my answer with dare I say it, ‘LOGIC’. Perhaps a syllogism. P1,P2…Therefor there is no scientific enquiry into logic.

What exactly would science of logic entail? What aspects? Given your posts on multiple threads it appears what you are saying is mathematics is on sky ground and the logic used is not ‘scientific’.

You know what they say. He who lives by the syllogism dies by the syllogism.

I would think that the answer would be as simple as if no one is studying it then no one thinks the particular aspect Speakpigeon wants studied is important enough. Anyone with the credentials finds other subjects more interesting.

That too. The young lions are always looking for a problem to make a reputation, it is highly competitive I imagine.

There are mathematicians that look at the foundations for possible problems. In the early 20th century asked if all math truths were provable. in context of the foundations.

I believe in the 90s a complete top down review was done.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Question—Why is there no scince of logic?

Answer—Logic evolved with language, And, Or, if then, and so on. This predated Aristotle. In the west Aristotle is credited with objectively quantifying logic, although he would have had predecessors. Over the last 200 years ‘scientific logic’ has developed Boolean algebra, fuzzy logic, Turing Machines (computers), and the rest.

There is a wealth of ‘scientific’ inquiry into logic. You refuse to acknowledge that you do not have a case. Most illogical.

Refute my answer with dare I say it, ‘LOGIC’.

I only need to show your comment is irrelevant and I achieve this merely by quoting my first post:

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.

What needs to be scientifically investigated is logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. If you think anyone has done that, please provide the evidence.

I have to tell you quite a few people marginally brighter than you have already tried and failed. The common flaw with all these people, though, is that they fail to understand the question to start with. Indeed, like you.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I would think that the answer would be as simple as if no one is studying it then no one thinks the particular aspect Speakpigeon wants studied is important enough. Anyone with the credentials could easily find other subjects more interesting.

I tend to like Occam's Razor.

If we assume that there's not empirical science of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, how anybody could know that the sundry formal methods used in mathematical logic are correct? An if not, that would seem a rather important fact. You know, for a long while, nobody was interested in the science of diseases, even at a time when science was in full swing. Or the science of the Earth's climate. Guess what?

It's funny and it has to be ironic that so many would-be empiricists here suddenly forget where there arses are.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Not all knowledge is derivable form a mechanistic logical step by step process. That is what you do not see.

Aristotle thought give a set of basic principles all things could be logically derived. He was wrong.

A large part of discovery is heuristic not logical.

Once a solution physical or mathematical is heuristically developed it is subjected to logical and empirical validation. Guesswork can get you to a potential solution, the solution then has to be verified both logically and experimentally.

Complex technical problems are not always reducible to a neat an tidy logical framework.

Heuristic learning is exhibited by many critters. Logic comes after heuristic. Heuristic learning and problem solving is an inherent human capacity.

 

[skepticalbip]

I would think that the answer would be as simple as if no one is studying it then no one thinks the particular aspect Speakpigeon wants studied is important enough. Anyone with the credentials could easily find other subjects more interesting.

I tend to like Occam's Razor.

If we assume that there's not empirical science of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, how anybody could know that the sundry formal methods used in mathematical logic are correct? An if not, that would seem a rather important fact. You know, for a long while, nobody was interested in the science of diseases, even at a time when science was in full swing. Or the science of the Earth's climate. Guess what?

It's funny and it has to be ironic that so many would-be empiricists here suddenly forget where there arses are.
EB

The answer to your question would still be the same. If no one is studying it then they are busy doing something they consider to be more important and interesting.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not all knowledge is derivable form a mechanistic logical step by step process. That is what you do not see.

You are wrong.

Aristotle thought give a set of basic principles all things could be logically derived. He was wrong.

You are wrong

Obviously you are a complete ignorant on the subject. Please stop talking from your arse.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The answer to your question would still be the same. If no one is studying it then they are busy doing something they consider to be more important and interesting.

And then maybe not.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

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.

We already determined the bases of scientific investigation of objective performance and capacity of human beings. It is the outgrowth of alignment of our senses to the nature of that which is sensed. It is not objective. It is evolved and it is responsive to the varieties of existing existential demand. We as social species recognize these facts and we have constructed methods to overcome our tendencies to make here and now judgements. There is noting inherent in our nature that intuits or embodies logic. Ergo no science of logic.

 

[Jokodo]

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? 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? 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?

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

How would it achieve that?

 

[skepticalbip]

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? 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? 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?

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

How would it achieve that?

Yes, it does seem that he has assumed some conclusion without explaining the reasoning and wants someone else to 'scientifically' verify his conclusion.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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.