Why no science of logic?

[Speakpigeon]

I agree logic evolved out of language. Spoken and written language is an abstraction with meaning derived from usage and immersion. Logic is a 'figment' of the imnagination like all things human imagine.

Formal logic is a language. Logic itself isn't. Clearly, you aren't yet there.

EB sees AL as some kind of absolute objective reality which it is not.

No I don't and you're comment here is plain shibboleth.

I've been arguing for a science of logic, an empirical science of logic. Where do you see any "absolute objective reality" in that?

Stop talking fro your arse. It's really rude.

He claims math and science are not Aristotilian in form

Where do I claim that?

Logic in and of itself does not guarantee truth, it is not absolute.

No, it isn't, I agree.

However, science effectively rests also on logical thought. This is the sense in which logic is not absolute, but fundamental to science. As long as we don't understand logic, and we don't, science is indeed on shaky ground.

All human thoughts are abstractions. Science is abstractions with a set of unambiguous physical reference points, SI units. Pure logic in EBs world has no objective reference points, it floats in a snse like electric circuits. .

Pure shibboleth.
EB

 

[Gun Nut]

You're beyond reprieve
the answer of someone who doesn't understand what are the deduction and the induction.
You're a big mouth... going on and on and on, just exhibiting your little personal philosophy of logic and nothing else
What you say here doesn't even make sense.
The phenomenal absurdity.
ignore me if you can't make sensible comments.
you don't even understand the question to begin with.
your comment is irrelevant and I achieve this merely by quoting
The common flaw with all these people, though, is that they fail to understand the question to start with
so many would-be empiricists here suddenly forget where there arses are
Obviously you are a complete ignorant on the subject. Please stop talking from your arse
Mindless ad lib
What is it you don't understand here? English?
try to comprehend my post
This thread is no argument.
You haven't a bloody clue
You can't even make sense of simple sentences
Maybe people are just stupid.
I don't feel like reading again and again the same nonsense
You're just an ignoramus talking from ignorance
you are an ignoramus
You haven't a clue.
You are a very sad example of the stupidity of mankind.
Why do you insist talking about that which you do not understand?
you're comment here is plain shibboleth

and then the latest gem...

So, all you can ever post here are nasty comments?!

Whoa. Get a life, man.
EB

Pot and kettle and all.

Jimmy for the win.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

science effectively rests also on logical thought.

What do you mean? Certain branches may use aspects of logic--such as inference and deduction or formal construction of an argument--in order to assess a theory or work out a problem, but it's meaningless to say something so broad and ill-defined as "science effectively rests on logical thought."

This is the sense in which logic is not absolute, but fundamental to science.

False equivalence.

As long as we don't understand logic, and we don't

What's not to understand? It's a tool of cognition. A set of rules to test an argument or proposition.

science is indeed on shaky ground.

Drivel. What you seem to be having such a problem with is the notion of accepting a fundamental truth; that we subjectively experience an objective reality. We accept or if you prefer infer this through the scientific method, which is to rigorously test everything numerous times and with independent corroboration such that reasonable consensus came come to a tentatively held truth that remains until such time as something else or additional alters it, usually only slightly, sometimes in more massive gestalts.

That is always the best we will ever be able to hope for due entirely to a brute fact of observation; the observer can't ever know the observed.

That's why we developed systems of testing, like logic and reason; precisely because we know it's not possible to surmount the hard problem. It's simply fundamental.

So the fuck what? There is no need--no utility--for 100% certainty all the time. It's not even possible for there to be 100% certainty in a chaotically dynamic quantum universe, so the very idea that there must be or can be or needs to be is prima facie false.

We have ten billion trillion quadrillion bits of evidence literally bombarding our bodies every nano-second that provide more than enough evidence to reasonably infer that what we sense is in fact objectively existing, but even if it were not, so what? If it behaves as if and we behave as if, then it is for all intents and purposes.

For the love of all that is unholy put down your freshman bong and stop creating these repetitions on the same theme. We get it. You don't like the way shit is and want it to be the way you want it to be. Welcome to a multi-dimensional spacetime that we are just barely beginning to understand.

Constantly pointing to your first bong hit revelation around solipsism, however, doesn't advance the cause.

 

[steve_bank]

Well there it is, EB thinks we are all stupid and ignorant.

There is logic that has been formalized and crafted into systems, like Boolean Algebra.

There is a reasoning and logical decision making process inherent to the brain.

The preponderance of evidence form experiments with animals says cognition and decagon making in new situations along with logical problem solving exist without any language.

Today I'd say the model is the neural net, which is actually in commercial use. Pattern recognition for one.

Logical systems starting with Aristotle are human created metaphysics with a purpose. Asking how logic works is like asking how arithmetic and counting works. That is neuroscience. The brain appears to multitask. We can understand what someone is saying while typing an email. I can work a math problem in my head while having a conversation, albeit a simple problem.

As an experiment try adding numbers in your head while watching TV.

Logic as in formal works based on specific definitions.

Reasoning is not a binary true or false. I'd say logic is a narrow subset of reasoning.

From my experience in engineering I have thought it can not be logic based as in AL.

Neural science essential reverse engineers the brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic is derivative of language which leverages off human capacity to produce varied sounds. That it has some structure, also a human capability, in no way means it is fundamental to that capacity no more than that one to produce varied sounds. It is an invention in the same way a language by a tribe is an invention with little other meaning about human capacities than to demonstrate their variety and breadth.

And how do you think you immediately infer, without even thinking about it, that any one particular cat you see for the first time will have all the characteristic behaviours of cats: mewing, purring, etc. You don't know this cat. Yet, you will immediately believe it has a number of characteristic behaviours.

That's true of cats and it's true of just about everything you will look at. You will infer properties you don't actually know that the thing has on the basis of your experience of similar but actually distinct things. One particular cat isn't the other cats. Yet, you immediately infer it has all the properties you believe cats have.

For a scientist, you really understand next to nothing about human beings and reality generally. You're obviously a specialist of some sort, but you are an utterly incompetent thinker. You're not the only one, far from it, but you beat the competition hands down. You are dogmatic. You compensate for your inability to think by being dogmatic. That's a way of life for you. You breathe dogma in and out. You can't express yourself outside dogma. You are a very sad example of the stupidity of mankind.
EB

Looking in a mirror doesn't help you at all. Cats? Immediately? Without thinking? Really? My early memories contradict your assertions in that I knew nothing about cats when I first saw them so that eliminates instinct. Being around cats for some time lead to improvements of my ability to characterize them with little thought but that certaining isn't intuition. Rather it is the result of experience and learning-response process improvement as many psychologists as early as Thorndike determined propelled by the neural function of association and other capacities.

As for the rest you hold words like thinking as precious without understanding anything about what makes one come to some conclusion about a category called thinking. You glibly come to some conclusion that "you immediately infer it has all the properties you believe cats have". No you don't. You presume things based on extensive experience with living things that are totally wrong or inaccurate which you have taken to mean something you wish to argue about.

BS in BS out.

Can you confirm yes or no that you don't accept that we all immediately infer on seeing a cat we've never seen before that it will display the characteristic behaviour of the kind we remember from previous experience with cats?!

Yes or no?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Formal logic is a language. Logic itself isn't. Clearly, you aren't yet there.



No I don't and you're comment here is plain shibboleth.

I've been arguing for a science of logic, an empirical science of logic. Where do you see any "absolute objective reality" in that?

Stop talking fro your arse. It's really rude.

He claims math and science are not Aristotilian in form

Where do I claim that?

Logic in and of itself does not guarantee truth, it is not absolute.

No, it isn't, I agree.

However, science effectively rests also on logical thought. This is the sense in which logic is not absolute, but fundamental to science. As long as we don't understand logic, and we don't, science is indeed on shaky ground.

All human thoughts are abstractions. Science is abstractions with a set of unambiguous physical reference points, SI units. Pure logic in EBs world has no objective reference points, it floats in a snse like electric circuits. .

Pure shibboleth.
EB

You conflate different issues in logic. The word is contextual. In human speech and reasoning logic is a part of language. Aristotle did not invent out of nothing. 'AND' is a word in a language and has no meaning outside of language. Same with a syllogism.

Math is a language. I worked in groups where math was spoken.

You can only view classical logic in context of language and communication. AL does not exist as an abstraction, it exists in language. If you ignore the greater context you will remain stuck in your closed circle of arguments.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You conflate different issues in logic. The word is contextual. In human speech and reasoning logic is a part of language. Aristotle did not invent out of nothing. 'AND' is a word in a language and has no meaning outside of language. Same with a syllogism.

Math is a language. I worked in groups where math was spoken.

You can only view classical logic in context of language and communication. AL does not exist as an abstraction, it exists in language. If you ignore the greater context you will remain stuck in your closed circle of arguments.

Irrelevant shibboleth.
EB