Why still no science of logic?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Speakpigeon, Jun 19, 2019.

Page 3 of 9
  1. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Zero understanding again.
    The question isn't about the genesis of logic as performance of humans and capacity of the brain.
    The question is that given that logic is itself an empirical fact, something we can observe people doing, why it is there is no empirical science of it. There is a science of the human mind, psychology. There is a science of human reasoning, the cognitive sciences, and yet, as of today and as far as I know, there's no scientist working on a formal model of deductive logic. Why is that?
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 25, 2019
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    And other mathematicians maintain that mathematics is all there is...... be balanced please.

    In fact, cosmologists are empirical mathematicians. All cosmology is theory until tested and verified that the maths are valid. TheHiggs boson was mathematically predicted before it was produced, using pure mathematics.

    Mathematics are valid as a property of the universe. Else we could not use "applied mathematics" for landing a rover on Mars.
     
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    What people understand and believe is not logical empiricism. The premise may be false and then the logic may be structurally true but empirically false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Irrelevant.
    Your understanding of what people say is near zero, you know?
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 25, 2019
    #44
  8. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Yeah, you're right.
    Many people say God exists. Please be balanced.
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 25, 2019
    #45
  9. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Because logic is a formal method for reasoning, using agreed-upon principles to determine validity. Logic is inherently self-consistent, and indeed is one of the underpinnings of science. Using science to study logic would be like using a ruler to study the concept of length.
    Women's fashion? Rappers? The popularity of Kim Kardashian?
    There is plenty of _study_ of logic. It's just not a field amenable to the scientific method of study.
     
    billvon, Jun 25, 2019
    #46
  10. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I personally want to see a science of math.
     
    Beer w/Straw, Jun 25, 2019
    #47
  11. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    There is a difference . Physics, Cosmology, and Mathematics are sciences. Religion is a belief.
     
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #48
  12. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    This may be of interest.
    https://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #49
  13. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    Well, ain't that a logical shame..please pray for me............

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #50
  14. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    How about a math of science? A science of science?
     
    billvon, Jun 25, 2019
    #51
  15. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Those both sound very logical to me.
     
    Beer w/Straw, Jun 25, 2019
    #52
  16. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    On second thought Speakpigeon,
    In your haste to display your superior intellect, you just committed a logical fallacy.
    Yet you accuse me that I have zero understanding of something that has not been said and that I am not able to understand subtexts........ spooky intellectual implications.....brrrrrr.
    Are you calling me an idiot or are you posting logically false statements?..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #53
  17. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,092
    Mathematical value symbols and equations are the letters and words in the language of universal science.
     
    Write4U, Jun 25, 2019
    #54
  18. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Speakpigeon:

    It's hardly my fault if you don't write clearly enough to be unambiguous in what you're saying. I'm trying to save a little time by filling in the gaps between what you said and what you might possibly have meant.

    I didn't say it was. What I said was that is the only empirical fact in play in the reasoning process at that moment in time. But now, with the benefit of a little more input from you, it looks as if you weren't quite talking about that.

    Okay, let's try again.

    You're saying that having worked out that Obama is a politician, then people hearing "all politicians are liars" demonstrably are able to deduce that the claim is being made that Obama is a liar, by implication. That is, you're saying that people are empirically able to self-generate syllogisms that are applicable to situations at hand, thereby forming new conclusions from information that is already available. You're also saying that this is a largely "automatic" process that people do "without even realising" they are doing it.

    In short, you're just making the obvious statement that people are observed to reason logically about certain things. I wouldn't have thought that was a very earth-shattering observation; it seems obvious to me. But at least we got there in the end - and only 50 posts into the thread.

    So ... speculation: you're looking for an empirical science that studies how people reason logically? You're aware that the cognitive sciences already study this, it seems. But you think that the "missing piece" is a "formal model of deductive logic", whatever that means in the context of human cognitive behaviour.

    Without knowing why you think this is missing, or what you think might be an outline for your formal model, there's little more to discuss at this point in the thread. I guess I'll wait to see whether, having stated the obvious, you have anything interesting to say on your topic.
     
    James R, Jun 26, 2019
    #55
  19. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That we have, of course - more than one:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic
    There is a great deal of empirical scientific research into human reasoning, of which what lends itself to formulation as a logic would be a part.
    There are several formal models of deductive logic, as linked - they formally model that aspect of what empirical research into human reasoning observes, as well as other possible logics not observed.
    Nothing appears to be missing, except what remains to be discovered and/or formally modeled - a rich field of unknowns, to be sure, but not one barren of researchers or modelers.
     
    iceaura, Jun 26, 2019
    #56
  20. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Derail.
    You're talking of logic as "a formal method of reasoning". I'm not, as indeed clearly specified in 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."
    I'm uncertain as to why it is so hard for you guys to just read the bloody question. Well, yeah, maybe reading isn't quite enough.
    Learn your English, Sir. Dictionaries variously define logic in this sense, the sense I'm using here, as "valid reasoning", "force or effectiveness in argument or dispute", "reasoned and reasonable judgement" etc.
    Still, you derail if you want to.
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 26, 2019
    #57
  21. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Sure, there is a difference, but none as to your initial remark. Please be balanced.
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 26, 2019
    #58
  22. Speakpigeon

    Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    You had a brain wave?
    Still, please explain what you mean. That's sounds very interesting and accusing people without explaining the accusation makes you look like a slanderer.
    Of course, I don't say in the bit you quoted that this is a valid implication. I call it an empirical fact. That's something that can be observed and it's something that linguists are very familiar with. So, where is the "logically false statement"?
    If you can at all explain yourself.
    EB
     
    Speakpigeon, Jun 26, 2019
    #59
  23. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Of which I briefly touched upon in post No. 3 of this thread, only omitting the word "neuroscience".

    I answered your question even before you clarified it.
     
    Beer w/Straw, Jun 26, 2019
    #60
Page 3 of 9

Share This Page