Whence comes logic

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Dave specifically posited that humans may not always see (recognize) all implied logical arguments employed by a natural event, yet here you accuse him of believing that human logic should be flawless?

    That sounds patently illogical to me. Poorly done, mate!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    That's not what I made my comment about.
    You are making yourself the wrong inference. My comment on his belief in the flawlessness of logic was based on the fact that he had disputed my earlier claim that nature routinely falsified our logic.
    Your posts don't even reach the minimum standard for rational conversation, let alone debate. Here, you quote my post but only partially his own, leaving out most of his argument, argument I was commenting is a patent non-sequitur. I was commenting on the argument, not on whether the premises or the conclusion were true. You should have looked up "non-sequitur" before making your ill-advised comment.
    Also, the bit you insist on doesn't in fact say anything at all about human logic as such. It says humans may not see all implied logical arguments employed by a natural event (whatever that may mean). This doesn't entail anything about the human logic. Wrong again, then? Life is harsh, yeah?
    So, to surmise, I have to tell you, once again, you're 100% wrong on all points.
    EB
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Please explain the difference between what physicists call nature, and whatever it is you're referring to when you post that word.
    Always with the Aristotle thing!

    A question I have about your repeated references to Aristotle is, what did people do before he presented his system? How did they manage?

    More questions: why doesn't Aristotle's system cover knot theory? Knots were well-known in his day. Why didn't he stack some equal-sized cubes together and investigate the permutations under rotations of 'layers' in the stack? Why didn't Aristotle write down Schrodinger's equation or Newton's Laws of motion?
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Then it would seem you are in agreement. So why the superfluous comment?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Well, perhaps the subtlety escapes you. If you have to ask what I mean, you did not understand my posit.

    There now, does that make more sense?
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I never claimed logic is flawless. You attempt to put words in my mouth.

    Quite the opposite. Logic can be flawed, which is why it needs to be replaced with logic based on more facts.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    IMO, natural logic is never flawed. The result of a logical operation may be flawed if based on a false premise, which is never true in nature. Nature does not employ flawed logic or premises, ever. Humans do.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Logic is a human creation. We use it to understand (among other things) nature. Nature is simply the emergent product of simple physics.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  12. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    First, I'm sure I already did.
    Second, I mean nothing unusual.
    Third, you have no justification whatsoever for failing to understand by yourself what I mean by the word "nature" simply because there is nothing unusual in what I say about nature. It's just pretty routine and common sense.
    Sorry, your question doesn't make sense. Do you mean how people could possibly know how to urinate or cook food, something like that?
    If your ideas are so interesting that you can't even get yourself to articulate them properly for our benefit, don't expect me to play guesswork. Your attitude is what I see myself as being rude.
    That bit doesn't even make sense. If you have a very interesting idea regarding Aristotle, it doesn't show here. You should try clarity and explicitness. Again, I'm not going to try and fathom the depth of your mind.
    Thank you for your renewed interest in my posts despite my being rude all the time.
    EB
     
  13. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I didn't say you claimed it, I said that was your belief.
    Oh, alright, I got it wrong, sorry.
    I guess I wasn't really paying attention to what was essentially a derail.
    And, so, I guess I read correctly your post post here but misunderstood it . I thought you meant logic when in fact you meant formal logic without saying so:
    So, yes, my disagreement was in fact with your view that falsification by nature implied flawed logic. To be more explicit, it's clear to me that our logic is constantly falsified by our observation of nature and yet I see it as flawless. I won't discuss this, essentially because I think you have nothing interesting to say on the subject. Still, you don't need me so you can always try.
    So, re-reading your last post, I now realise we're not even talking about the same thing. You're talking about formal logic, which is properly called "formal logic", not "logic" as you carelessly call it all the time, whereas I was talking about "logic", as in "our logic", i.e. the one and only logic we know, as the human intuitive cognitive capability we all have.
    So, on your claim that formal logic "can be flawed, which is why it needs to be replaced with logic based on more facts", I agree absolutely. So, for example, I see mathematical logic based on truth table to be flawed. However, I see Gentzen's method of proof as just a generalisation of Aristotle's formal logic and I doubt there could be any problem with it, i.e. I see it as flawless, although again, there is no doubt in my mind it is falsified by nature.
    Good, I think I clarified the misunderstanding. I'm sorry I don't have the time to argue with you on this interesting derail, but again I'm sure you don't need me.
    EB
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Please don't lecture me or anyone else here about justification.
    I doubt he was kidding. I doubt that CERN was kidding about the cost of the latest upgrade to the LHC.

    If you're here to condescend actual science, which is where Write4U gets the idea (and he isn't alone) that "nature" has four known fundamental forces, please stop doing it.

    Just to make things a bit more interesting, one of the fundamental forces, gravity, isn't really a force. Maybe none of the others are either, but that's what everyone calls them.

    Two of the forces, the strong nuclear force and the weak force are not part of normal human experience. Well, sort of, because for instance your sense of weight is due to your mass interacting with the mass of the earth. Your mass is mostly particles interacting at the nuclear level (i.e. quarks bound by the strong force).

    This is basic science these days, it's the sort of information that's been available to the layman for decades. Where have you been?

    Wait, I know the answer: in a cave with Aristotle.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  15. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    And... what's your point?
    All I see in your post is irrelevant, not only to this thread but also to what I said. It seems there is something that stops you from understanding my posts properly.
    And for your information, nothing in your post that you seem to take to be good scientific information is news to me. Come back when you know enough to teach me good science.
    EB
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I admit my shortcoming in knowledge about "good science".

    Can you enlighten me about the good scientific definition of Nature and why we use that term in science? This is what I know.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Another bit I discovered;
    https://people.umass.edu/mayae/FP.pdf
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    SP discusses, while saying he won't discuss: with his hand firmly holding a ripcord, forewarning us he'll bail.

    If SP chooses not to defend his claim then my refutation of it stands uncontested.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I agree, but I go a little further, based on my interest in Tegmark's Mathematical Universe.

    The objection to his mathematical hypothesis is that "mathematics" is a human invention, which of course is true.
    But it is also true that human mathematics are based on observation of natural values and functions (by any other name) and that human mathematics is the symbolic translations of observed orderly and predictable chronology and evolution of the Universe and all physical things in it.

    Assuming this is correct, can we ask if "logic" is also part of this perspective, and while "logic" is a human invention, it is also based on observation of predictable natural values and functions and is in fact part of the world of universal mathematics?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    ...phenomena, yes.

    Logic conforms to cause-and-effect. As do natural forces. If we don't see the cause-and-effect, it's because we're not seeing everything, and therefore may construct faulty logic.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  21. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    There isn't any scientific definition of nature, and for a good reason. However, this reason isn't scientific. And you only asked about the science of it. So, there, you have it.
    EB
     
  22. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Maybe it's time to put up the OP again for attention. Thank you to limit yourself to that...

    Here is your chance to air your views as to whence comes logic.

    As a motivation introduction, I observe that most educated people take logic to be a branch of mathematics, or perhaps whatever mathematicians study that they call "logic" since broadly the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, the first systematic presentation of what humans understand of logical rules was made by Aristotle and that was something like 2,400 years ago, and as far as I know, most intellectuals since have accepted Aristotle's presentation as correct. I'm not aware that anything in mathematical logic shows Aristotle was wrong.

    Whatever the case, is it possible to study anything if there isn't something to study? This suggests logic exists somehow somewhere. But where exactly?

    Traditionally, philosophers see rules of logic as necessary and a priori, rather than contingent and empirical. Putnam argued they could be empirical, taking the example of Quantum Physics to support this suggestion. Yet, even a priori rules have to come from somewhere unless you think God the merciful help us sort out the necessary from the contingent.

    If we all have our own personal sense of logic, why is it most intellectuals agreed with Aristotle's logic (and I would assume most people here)? But if we all have the same logic, how come?

    And where are we supposed to look when we want to produce a method of logic that, somehow, would be correct?
    EB
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Oh and what is mathematical logic then?
    and
    Apparently those scientists found a specific functionality connected with the concept of logically formalized mathematics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018

Share This Page