Why no science of logic?

[Jokodo]

It's not an assumption, it's an observation.

Yeah, yours.

What are you doing in a science forum if you can't distinguish the two?

???

You must be kidding, right?
EB

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your argument here shows you don't understand my question to begin with.

Basically, I was assuming mathematical logic was wrong, and therefore had an incorrect notion of validity, and asked what could be the consequences of that.


Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic.

I lost interest in what you can tell a while ago. You haven't answered my questions. Not this one, not the question on validity. You won't ever, simply because, somehow, you don't understand the questions.

Even though they are really, really simple.

Have a good day.
EB

First, you grossly misrepresent what happened in the other thread. I would recommend readers to take a look (link: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?18548-How-a-wrong-logic-could-affect-mathematics).
The fact is that I did reply to your argument. I said pretty clearly that assuming that:

a. Mathematical logic uses the definition of validity that you say it does.
b. Mathematical logic, as you claim, has the wrong definition of validity, in the sense that it is not equivalent to the notion of validity in human logic.
c. Every mathematical statement is either true or false - which follows from your own assertion that every statement is either true or false, in reply to one of my questions,

then, the main consequence of mathematical logic being wrong would be that mathematicians have a superior tool for finding mathematical truth than human logic. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to claim that arguments using mathematical logic are human-valid, so that would need correcting. But mathematicians should keep using the superior tool, namely mathematical logic.

It is interesting that I said that - and argued for it, establishing it conclusively-, before you made claims that implied that human logic was not truth-preserving. So, even without the debunking of your position that I posted in this thread, it followed that mathematicians had the superior method - the wrong logic, that is.

Second, in that thread, and after you made statements implying that Aristotelian logic is not truth-preserving, I showed how bad Aristotelian logic was, assuming your claims!. Since you also claimed that Aristotelian logic is human logic, that applies to human logic as well.

Third, you claim that you lost interest in what I have to tell you, even though you reply to me so you ought to expect a reply. Alright, whatever, but I still have an interest in debunking your claims over an over again. Why? As I said, it is proper retaliation for misrepresenting my position over and over again. You misrepresent, then I debunk. You misrepresent again, then I debunk again. And so on.

Fourth, of course your claim that "Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic." is false, and it is obvious to a person reading the exchange with a minimum amount of interest and being rational about it that is false.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What are you doing in a science forum if you can't distinguish the two?

???

You must be kidding, right?
EB

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

Don't digress, just explain why suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic would have no place in the science forum?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your argument here shows you don't understand my question to begin with.

Basically, I was assuming mathematical logic was wrong, and therefore had an incorrect notion of validity, and asked what could be the consequences of that.


Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic.

I lost interest in what you can tell a while ago. You haven't answered my questions. Not this one, not the question on validity. You won't ever, simply because, somehow, you don't understand the questions.

Even though they are really, really simple.

Have a good day.
EB

First, you grossly misrepresent what happened in the other thread. I would recommend readers to take a look (link: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?18548-How-a-wrong-logic-could-affect-mathematics).
The fact is that I did reply to your argument. I said pretty clearly that assuming that:

a. Mathematical logic uses the definition of validity that you say it does.
b. Mathematical logic, as you claim, has the wrong definition of validity, in the sense that it is not equivalent to the notion of validity in human logic.
c. Every mathematical statement is either true or false - which follows from your own assertion that every statement is either true or false, in reply to one of my questions,

then, the main consequence of mathematical logic being wrong would be that mathematicians have a superior tool for finding mathematical truth than human logic. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to claim that arguments using mathematical logic are human-valid, so that would need correcting. But mathematicians should keep using the superior tool, namely mathematical logic.

It is interesting that I said that - and argued for it, establishing it conclusively-, before you made claims that implied that human logic was not truth-preserving. So, even without the debunking of your position that I posted in this thread, it followed that mathematicians had the superior method - the wrong logic, that is.

Second, in that thread, and after you made statements implying that Aristotelian logic is not truth-preserving, I showed how bad Aristotelian logic was, assuming your claims!. Since you also claimed that Aristotelian logic is human logic, that applies to human logic as well.

Third, you claim that you lost interest in what I have to tell you, even though you reply to me so you ought to expect a reply. Alright, whatever, but I still have an interest in debunking your claims over an over again. Why? As I said, it is proper retaliation for misrepresenting my position over and over again. You misrepresent, then I debunk. You misrepresent again, then I debunk again. And so on.

Fourth, of course your claim that "Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic." is false, and it is obvious to a person reading the exchange with a minimum amount of interest and being rational about it that is false.

Don't bother because, me, I don't feel like reading again and again the same nonsense.
EB

 

[Jokodo]

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

Don't digress, just explain why suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic would have no place in the science forum?
EB

It might or might not.

Independently of that, if it is, a person who is unable to distinguish assumptions from observations is clearly unqualified to parttake in such a discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

Don't digress, just explain why suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic would have no place in the science forum?
EB

1) suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

2) Therefore, suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your argument here shows you don't understand my question to begin with.

Basically, I was assuming mathematical logic was wrong, and therefore had an incorrect notion of validity, and asked what could be the consequences of that.


Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic.

I lost interest in what you can tell a while ago. You haven't answered my questions. Not this one, not the question on validity. You won't ever, simply because, somehow, you don't understand the questions.

Even though they are really, really simple.

Have a good day.
EB

First, you grossly misrepresent what happened in the other thread. I would recommend readers to take a look (link: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?18548-How-a-wrong-logic-could-affect-mathematics).
The fact is that I did reply to your argument. I said pretty clearly that assuming that:

a. Mathematical logic uses the definition of validity that you say it does.
b. Mathematical logic, as you claim, has the wrong definition of validity, in the sense that it is not equivalent to the notion of validity in human logic.
c. Every mathematical statement is either true or false - which follows from your own assertion that every statement is either true or false, in reply to one of my questions,

then, the main consequence of mathematical logic being wrong would be that mathematicians have a superior tool for finding mathematical truth than human logic. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to claim that arguments using mathematical logic are human-valid, so that would need correcting. But mathematicians should keep using the superior tool, namely mathematical logic.

It is interesting that I said that - and argued for it, establishing it conclusively-, before you made claims that implied that human logic was not truth-preserving. So, even without the debunking of your position that I posted in this thread, it followed that mathematicians had the superior method - the wrong logic, that is.

Second, in that thread, and after you made statements implying that Aristotelian logic is not truth-preserving, I showed how bad Aristotelian logic was, assuming your claims!. Since you also claimed that Aristotelian logic is human logic, that applies to human logic as well.

Third, you claim that you lost interest in what I have to tell you, even though you reply to me so you ought to expect a reply. Alright, whatever, but I still have an interest in debunking your claims over an over again. Why? As I said, it is proper retaliation for misrepresenting my position over and over again. You misrepresent, then I debunk. You misrepresent again, then I debunk again. And so on.

Fourth, of course your claim that "Instead of replying to my question, you assume here that the mathematical notion of validity is correct and infer from that Aristotle would be wrong. This is pathetic." is false, and it is obvious to a person reading the exchange with a minimum amount of interest and being rational about it that is false.

Don't bother because, me, I don't feel like reading again and again the same nonsense.
EB

First, the nonsense is on your part.
Second, again, I am not trying to persuade you anymore. At this point, it is apparent that you are being irrational to the extend that you are clearly beyond persuasion. However, I want to prevent readers to believe your false claims about what I said or did, which you repeat with reckless disregard from the truth. I also want to retaliate for making them. For those and other reasons, I might choose to continue debunking - for the n-th time - your position.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

Don't digress, just explain why suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic would have no place in the science forum?
EB

1) suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

2) Therefore, suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

Like math in general logical systems is an applied science. In is accepted as valid within the definitions and rules after a period of application to real world situations.

One of the fi9rst technical applications of Boolean Algebra was in the old relay logic.

We just say meath and logic a, but one could say science of logic.

 

[steve_bank]

Aristotle is not referenced in math and science because he is an historical footnote. He is credited with being the first in writing that has survived with creating a structured approach to observation, and the first systematic approach to logic.

Nobody 'applies' Aristotle.

The Greeks had hydraulics, pneumatics, and mechanics without a generalized formal systematic approach to logic. History shows a systematic formal log is not required for science and technology. Egypt, Greece, Rome and earlier still.

In engineering we study Boole, Turing, and a list of others who have developed quantifiable systems of logic. Far more than simple identities and syllogisms. Syllogisms are pretty much useless.

A logical system is composed of definitions and riles. No different that Euclidean geometry.

He keeps shifting, EBs conundrum seems to be what logic is based on. He sees assumptions of truth, therefore math is on false foundations.

Math and logic are metaphysical abstractions as are all things human created. I tried reading Kant and I got a head ache. That kind of reasoning ia all based on atbitry comncrpts that can not be tested.

Logic is an abstraction that can be tested. What I call Boolean logic can be constructed in physical reality and tested. I I know that if I construct a logic circuit based on Boolean algebra it will work as predicted. I base the faith on about 100 years of application.

Philosophy fell by the wayside because it could not provide tools to deal with modern observation and experimentation. Traditional metaphysics was insufficient.

Logic went to math and computer science. Natural Science went to an array of specialized independent fields of science. Physics, chemistry. Astronomy. All math based on experimental validation..

EB should read a book 9on Theory Of Computation.

No calculus or math required. All logic. Logic trees and graphs. No Aristotle or syllogisms.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not the one who thinks they can overturn all of modern logic on the basis of "this doesn't feel right (to me)" - and even explicitly assuming/claiming that everyone (who hasn't been indoctrinated) must share their idiosyncratic hunches.

I'm also not the one insulting people because they give answers I don't like.

Don't digress, just explain why suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic would have no place in the science forum?
EB

It might or might not.

Independently of that, if it is, a person who is unable to distinguish assumptions from observations is clearly unqualified to parttake in such a discussion.

Here is the relevant post:

Speakpigeon, if people aren't getting your point, there's two logical possibilities (in any logic): people are stupid, or your point is at best poorly expressed and possibly invalid. What reason do you have (beyond maybe a belief in your infallability) to assume the former? Occam's Razor would suggest the latter, especially as it's not just a couple people but effectively everyone that'd have to be stupid

I'm not decided on this. Maybe people are just stupid.

Or, it is just a matter that they are not motivated to think about logic.

Or, they haven't been lucky like me to find good reasons to believe differently.

Also, you are making the wrong assumption about my point being "poorly expressed". First of all, I express myself in good English. Second, I often take the time to go into the details of the point. But, sure, I'm not writing a book each time I make a reply. And, if I'm not good enough, what are you? Who on this board is anyway near being very articulate? Most people here can't even bring themselves to read properly the post they comment on.

Occam's Razor is good. We just don't have the same information to begin with so we're going to disagree which side it cuts.
EB

It's not an assumption, it's an observation. What are you doing in a science forum if you can't distinguish the two?

This comment is idiotic or fraudulent.

Your claim that my posts are "poorly expressed" is an opinion, not an observation.

You can only observe my posts and if you come to believe they are poorly expressed, then it will be your opinion, not an observation.

Given that a post is objectively only a string of words and that you can't fault my grammar or my vocabulary, you can't possibly observe poor expression in my posts.

Claiming it is an "observation" is just idiotic or fraudulent.

Arguing on this fraudulent basis that my thread shouldn't be in the science forum is compounding the fraud with malevolence.

That puts you in the same league as Trump.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

1) suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

2) Therefore, suggesting there should be an empirical science of logic has no place in the science forum.

Why?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nobody 'applies' Aristotle.

I do. I works. Beautifully. You're just an ignoramus talking from ignorance.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Aristotle is not referenced in math and science because he is an historical footnote. He is credited with being the first in writing that has survived with creating a structured approach to observation, and the first systematic approach to logic.

Nobody 'applies' Aristotle.

The Greeks had hydraulics, pneumatics, and mechanics without a generalized formal systematic approach to logic. History shows a systematic formal log is not required for science and technology. Egypt, Greece, Rome and earlier still.

In engineering we study Boole, Turing, and a list of others who have developed quantifiable systems of logic. Far more than simple identities and syllogisms. Syllogisms are pretty much useless.

A logical system is composed of definitions and riles. No different that Euclidean geometry.

He keeps shifting, EBs conundrum seems to be what logic is based on. He sees assumptions of truth, therefore math is on false foundations.

Math and logic are metaphysical abstractions as are all things human created. I tried reading Kant and I got a head ache. That kind of reasoning ia all based on atbitry comncrpts that can not be tested.

Logic is an abstraction that can be tested. What I call Boolean logic can be constructed in physical reality and tested. I I know that if I construct a logic circuit based on Boolean algebra it will work as predicted. I base the faith on about 100 years of application.

Philosophy fell by the wayside because it could not provide tools to deal with modern observation and experimentation. Traditional metaphysics was insufficient.

Logic went to math and computer science. Natural Science went to an array of specialized independent fields of science. Physics, chemistry. Astronomy. All math based on experimental validation..

EB should read a book 9on Theory Of Computation.

No calculus or math required. All logic. Logic trees and graphs. No Aristotle or syllogisms.

You should look at the facts before speaking as if you had. You just don't know the facts. Not about !Aristotle because you are an ignoramus and not about me because you just don't know me. So, please, stop talking about me as if you knew me.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Aristotle is not referenced in math and science because he is an historical footnote. He is credited with being the first in writing that has survived with creating a structured approach to observation, and the first systematic approach to logic.

Nobody 'applies' Aristotle.

... snip ....

Aristotelian logic was a small part of one required course for freshmen philosophy majors in my university. After that, I don't think it was ever mentioned again.

 

[steve_bank]

EB said he found no references to Aristotle in mathematical logic. IMO Aristotle is important in the history of the development of western thought. In the west we take the Greeks as the beginning. He is useful as is Platoo in getiing and understanding of where our intellectual roots lie. We emphasize almost exclusively hard logic as the basis of reasoning. Not so in other cultures.

I had four classes in philosophy. Intro, comparative religion, ethics, and logic. Logic was partly learning to read text and translate it into logical arguments, like a syllogism.

 

[steve_bank]

Nobody 'applies' Aristotle.

I do. I works. Beautifully. You're just an ignoramus talking from ignorance.
EB

Hey, I resemble that remark.

I only know you from your posts.

You do not understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. If so give me examples to demonstrate your knowledge form applications.

Logic today encompasses far more than Aristotle's comparatively simple syllogisms and basic logical principles. For example in CS Theory Of Computation and Finite Automata. Mealy and Moore logical state machines.

On a complex problem with no a priori solution one can not simply apply simple Aristotelian logic.

When one says Aristotelian logic that simply means common logic. If, then, else, and, or and so on. Everyone leans that by immersion growing up.

Two forensic teams arrive at an accident scene. One starts at the car and works backwards to causes. The other starts at the road and follows clues to the car. Which is deductive and which is inductive,. Answer that with some reasoning and I will accept you know something of logic and reasoning.

 

[skepticalbip]

EB said he found no references to Aristotle in mathematical logic.

Interesting... why would anyone expect to find references to Aristotle in math? Would they also expect to find references to Euclid in biology?

IMO Aristotle is important in the history of the development of western thought.

Did Aristotle really help develop western thought or just create a 'catalogue' of how reasonable people already decided questions? I'm pretty sure that reasonable people before Aristotle, after learning that a cow was a mammal, never thought that since a cat is a mammal then it must be a cow... but Aristotle did illustrate their reasoning as to why they didn't think such a thing.

 

[steve_bank]

EB said he found no references to Aristotle in mathematical logic.

Interesting... why would anyone expect to find references to Aristotle in math? Would they also expect to find references to Euclid in biology?

IMO Aristotle is important in the history of the development of western thought.

Did Aristotle really help develop western thought or just create a 'catalogue' of how reasonable people already decided questions? I'm pretty sure that reasonable people before Aristotle, after learning that a cow was a mammal, never thought that since a cat is a mammal then it must be a cow... but Aristotle did illustrate their reasoning as to why they didn't think such a thing.

I am not an expert in jistory of philodophy. We take the origins of our modern thunking on politics and governmet to be the ancient Greeks. They covered all the questions. What is a good life, what is right and wrong, what is justice.

I remember something I think from the Dialogues. A man leaves a spear or weapon with a friend and goes out drinking. He comes back angry and drunk demanding his weapon. Legally it is his, is it right to give it to him in his condition? Legal vs moral.

They covered most of the moral questions that we are faced with today..

 

[skepticalbip]

Interesting... why would anyone expect to find references to Aristotle in math? Would they also expect to find references to Euclid in biology?

Did Aristotle really help develop western thought or just create a 'catalogue' of how reasonable people already decided questions? I'm pretty sure that reasonable people before Aristotle, after learning that a cow was a mammal, never thought that since a cat is a mammal then it must be a cow... but Aristotle did illustrate their reasoning as to why they didn't think such a thing.

I am not an expert in jistory of philodophy. We take the origins of our modern thunking on politics and governmet to be the ancient Greeks. They covered all the questions. What is a good life, what is right and wrong, what is justice.

I remember something I think from the Dialogues. A man leaves a spear or weapon with a friend and goes out drinking. He comes back angry and drunk demanding his weapon. Legally it is his, is it right to give it to him in his condition? Legal vs moral.

They covered most of the moral questions that we are faced with today..

Sorry, I apparently misunderstood your post. You are right that ancient Greece thought on government did influence the west's ideas of governance. I strangely read it as Aristotle developed our method of reasoning... my error.

 

[steve_bank]

In a sense he did. Post Aristotle to today we try an shoe horn everything into logical form, like a syllogism. Anything not in a logical form is rejected.

Eastern traditions do not base reasoning on logic as strongly as we do. Not that they ignore logic. In Zen truths can not be realized by logical rational analysis.

Consider the ST series. Spock the uber logical and McCoy the uber emotional. The moralist.

On a given problem nether McCoy or Spock could find a solution. Kirk reasons out a solution weeing logic, emotion, and morality. A situation where rational logic leads to a bad solution.