Why still no science of logic?

I think SP's posts are contradictory. This understanding, in his view, isn't a science or a theory.
Then we get this:

"the question" hasn't been answered since Aristotle, apparently, this is obvious and something we can all, erm, deduce for ourselves.

So for some unspecified reason we can disqualify everything since Aristotle from being a science of logic. And we have to exclude Aristotle too because he didn't answer "the question".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess I already said all there is to say on that point and it was right in my first post.
Here is the "research program":

And here I specify the thing to be investigated:

What's not empirical there?

No, I absolutely didn't dismiss the cognitive sciences. You're making stuff up.
I can't think of any problem with the cognitive sciences doing the job. Why would there be a problem?
What I did told you is that, contrary to your belief, they're not doing it at the moment.

I replied to your objections. I provided the relevant details. You should be able to understand from what I already said. There's nothing else you need from me to be able to address my question.
Instead, all you do is try to falsify the premises. But if you think the premises are false, why asks details that would be relevant to you only if you accepted the premises.
I'm not a repeater, Yazata. You would need to try a little harder here.
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, you're not making sense here. What's your point and what's your arguments in support of your point?! Do I have to read your mind?
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm definitely impressed by Aristotle's contribution. Yet, it's a fact he only pointed at the existence of logic, somewhat like someone would point a finger to make a child become aware of the Moon. He did do a little of formal logic, all good unlike that of mathematicians, but barely enough to make sure we understand what he was talking about. And the fact is, from what they say about Aristotle's formal logic, mathematicians only show they haven't understood.
Once you realise there's something, you can start to think about how you could do some science about it. And it's 2,500 years already now we know logic exists. Isn't it time we do something about it? So, why is there still no science of logic? I find this rather perplexing that nobody seems to even notice.
EB

 

It could have to do with that logic itself is the ''science of reasoning'' if we wanted to get technical about the definition. Logic gives way to a set of principles that lead us to reasoning, and then basing hypotheses, conclusions, etc on that reasoning. Maybe there's nothing to ''notice'' really, if we look at it that way.

 

???
There is something to notice since we noticed it.
Do you think conceivable that all the many thinkers who've been discussing deductive logic since Aristotle, and indeed before him, were only discussing how many angels on the head of a pin?
EB

 

Hmm. Maybe lol
Why do you feel no one has come up with a science for logic?

 

I don't "feel" it. It's a fact.
From the few articulate reactions I got, scientists perhaps see logic as an abstraction and they are generally little motivated to investigate abstractions.
Some people in the 19th century started to discuss logic through the angle of psychology, which could have resulted eventually in a proper science. However, some philosophers, like Russell I think, fought this perspective and the critics won the battle of ideas. In effect, these people opted for a metaphysical view of logic and this definitely undercut the possibility of a science of logic. And then, the issue was gradually forgotten by successive generations of mathematicians and everybody else thinks now of logic as a mathematical discipline and no longer as an objective human capability.
EB

 

Oh silly.

Research done by cognitive scientists into the development of logic and reasoning in children, for example, is being done now as it has been for decades - and it's sometimes famous, being an attractive subject for media attention: you can't have missed it.

The large scale and ongoing research into human reasoning by the AI developers and marketing algorithm developers and the like has also hit the mass media - hard to miss.

 

Derail.

Yeah, visibly you can't be bothered to actually read what the topic of the thread is. My first post says: 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.

And then people are surprised they get the rough treatment.

Here. Read that and only then comment.

Or don't read it and don't comment.
EB

 

That option certainly seems like the winner here.

This whole thread has been about you repeatedly claiming that some thing doesn't exist, and shooting down any attempts to say the thing does exist, even maybe.

Your staunch defense of nothing so much as an idea, is interesting by itself, in a completely distracting and irrelevant way. It doesn't seem to have very much to do with logic. All you've managed is a claim: "there is still no science of logic", with absolutely zero supporting evidence; the evidence appears to support the opposite claim, but you can't admit that, can you?

Because y0u're a numpty.

 

Please do. Your comments are invariably vacuous.

No. I asked a question. This required to make explicit the context of it. This in turn required that I implicitly assert the fact that there is no science of logic that develops a formal model of it. This is also a trivial fact, which is why I didn't even thought it would be disputed, which is why it was assumed in my question. Anyone disagreeing with this point would need to provide evidence to the contrary. No one did that. And that's also a trivial a fact in evidence in this thread.
Your allegations against me clearly are systematic but they are also systematically unjustified: You make false allegations about me without ever providing any evidence to support them. You are a nuisance and given the vacuity of your posts, you are only a nuisance.

I didn't claim that there is no scientific studies on the logical capability of human subjects, although I think they are no good. But the obvious fact is that the cognitive sciences are not even trying to produce a formal model of deductive logic. Hence, there is no scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.
Again, nobody provided any evidence to the contrary.

Sure. Why don't you just ignore me?
EB

 

But that isn't an obvious fact. Not even close.

It looks a lot more like something you decided is true. That's great, but it isn't science, nor is it philosophy.

 

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.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?

Thank you to try and justify your answer.
EB

 

Starting with children, of course - as with many other investigations into objective performance and manifest capabilities of human beings by cognitive scientists.

As far as a "formal model of logic", you have seen links. It's called "metalogic", accurately enough, and you will have to your own net searches now - blowing off other people's has discouraged your informants.

There is, as presented to you. Read up - it will do you good to learn something.

 

No.
In the study of formal languages, the object of study is... formal languages.
In the investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain, the object of study is logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
I'm not sure why this seems so difficult for you to understand but I'd worry if I were you.
As Wiki says in the link you posted but didn't read properly, "The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages". Formal languages. See?
I already replied to that but you clearly don't understand the difference between the study of formal languages and the investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
Me, I'm not interested in the study of formal languages. Instead, I'm asking for a scientific investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
I hope you understand the difference.
Sorry for repeating myself but I'm at a loss as to how make you understand what is otherwise perfectly obvious.
EB

 

You were linked to various investigations by cognitive scientists into the development and nature of logical reasoning in developing and reasoning human beings. That is of course not an investigation of the abstract, but the physical. The links were to empirical research, producing physical data. It is a fairly active field.

If you are unable to follow them, their purpose etc, take a class in the topic, or read on the subject with a tutor to help you through the hard parts.

You also required of respondents that they provide you with evidence of efforts to make a formal description or model of logic. You were apparently unable to find them either, on the internet.
You were provided with that as well, in various links and hints to the topic of "metalogic" and similar areas of ongoing research.

Again: if you are unfamiliar enough with the basic concepts that you don't recognize these efforts or their relevance to your questions, take a class or read with a tutor.

 

LOL.

Repeating yourself, too?

I guess we don't have anything left to argue over.
EB