Logical Absurdities?
Some logical arguments (even if they are Deductive premises) can lead to wrong conclusions, even if all the premises are true and the arguments consistent.
All d -> a (true)
All c -> a (true)
Therefore c = d (true)
Above logical arguments look OK in the symbols. But when they are put in with the real objects in the world, it leads to the wrong conclusion.
All dogs are animals. (true)
All cats are animals. (true)
Therefore cats are dogs (false)
What are the actual problems here?
All d -> a (true)
All c -> a (true)
Therefore c = d (true)
Above logical arguments look OK in the symbols. But when they are put in with the real objects in the world, it leads to the wrong conclusion.
All dogs are animals. (true)
All cats are animals. (true)
Therefore cats are dogs (false)
What are the actual problems here?
Comments (98)
What is the middle term, and how should it be distributed? Where is the counter-example? Could you elaborate with more details and examples?
The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing letters in the first example and comparing categories (animals) to elements of categories (cats and dogs) in the latter.
If a in the first example were a category, like animals, and c and d were elements of that category then c = d would be false too. Essentially, a, c and d are not being defined in the same way as animals and dogs and cats, so the relationship between the letters vs animals and dogs and cats are completely different.
As usual, it comes down to what the scribbles point to, or how they are defined.
Well, not "letters", but they are "objects".
Quoting Harry Hindu
But surely, cats and dogs themselves can be categories too?
Sure, but are a, c and d categories?
If you re-wrote the first example as
All c's are letters . (true)
All d's are letters. (true)
Therefore d's are c's (false)
Then it would be a fair comparison to your second example. In other words, you're comparing different types of entities in each example, so what works for one fails to work with the other.
Illicit minor
1. All A are B
2. All C are B
Ergo, you feel
3. All A are C
A, B, and C are terms or classes/categories.
In 1, A is the subject term, B is the predicate term. 1 is making a claim about members of the subject term/class/category (A), specifically that ALL of them also belong to the predicate term/class/category (B). 2 is the exact same story but this time about C and B.
Remember this is categorical (term/class/category) logic developed I'm told by Aristotle.
The major premise contains the predicate term of the conclusion. In your argument, it's 2. The minor premise is the one that has the subject term of the premise viz. 1.
The middle term is the link between the subject term of the conclusion (A) and the predicate term of the conclusion (C) and is not found in the conclusion. The middle term is B.
The middle term has to be distributed i.e. there must be a premise that makes a claim about ALL the members of the middle term.
All X are Y type of statements are called a universal statements and the subject term (X) is distributed but, unfortunately, for your argument not the predicate term (Y).
As you can see all the premises (1, 2) are universal statements that have B as a predicate term i.e. The term/class/category B isn't distributed. That makes your argument invalid.
An intuition on why the middle term needs to be distributed is that it's the link between the subject term of the conclusion and the predicate term of the conclusion and the link needs to be as strong as possible and for that a premise must make a claim about ALL members of the middle term.
I also thought, it is possible for the arguments to come to the true conclusion, had the premises came up with the complete set of sufficient and necessary propositions, because obviously the deductive premises above has insufficient conditions for the conclusion.
It is just to show that simple traditional symbolic logic can be a bit inadequate for arriving at true conclusions, even if the arguments look valid and consistent.
And then you will get people claiming that his dog is a copycat, so the conclusion is right, when the others say it isn't. Or some will say that his dog is a hot dog. Hot dogs are not animals, because it doesn't move or breath etc, so that the premise is false etc.
Great study material. Thanks :up:
It depends on from what angle you are looking at anything. If you feel sh*t, then everything looks sh*t. You can criticise anything, if you want. But it is just a psychology, not the objects out there.
How right you are. The angle makes all the difference. From a certain angle, shit looks like shit, from another angle, shit looks like... :chin:
I thought for the fact that you replied to this thread with the good write up, you must also be very much interested in the topic, but what made you feel that way, I am lost. :) But never mind. I hope you feel better.
Ranting! Venting! Blowing off steam! Sorry you had to see this! By the way, did I say anything even mildly inappropriate? Apologies if I did.
On a more serious note, logic is logic's own worst enemy (it fails its own tests). That's the beauty!
No troublems. Logic had never been an interesting subject for me before, but since reading more forum discussions recently, my interest on logic seems have gone up. I will try to learn more about it through time with more practicing :D
Quoting TheMadFool
I would go with that. :grin:
The problems are:
(1) Your first example is not correct syntax, and even when corrected, it is irrelevant
Maybe you meant:
Ax(Dx -> Bx)
Ax(Cx -> Bx)
therefore Ax(Cx <-> Dx)
But the logical calculus doesn't permit that inference so your example is irrelevant.
Or more simply you might mean:
D -> B
C -> A
therefore C <-> D
Again, the logical calculus doesn't permit that inference so your example is irrelevant.
(2) Your second argument is not correct syntax, and even when corrected, it is irrelevant.
Maybe you mean:
Ax(Dx -> Nx)
Ax(Cx -> Nx)
therefore Ax(Cx -> Dx)
The logical calculus doesn't permit that inference so your example is irrelevant.
You gave examples of arguments that symbolic logic rules as invalid. That's not a problem for symbolic logic; it's only a problem for you if you think symbolic logic does rule those arguments as valid.
Its a good bet that, if you're not taking a class, then the best way to learn is from a good textbook.
'Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning' by Kalish, Montague, and Mar is the best introduction, in my opinion based on having looked at a lot of logic books.
I have started reading a couple of Introduction to Logic books, and still in the 1st chapter. It has not gone to the logical calculus chapter yet.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
Sure it is not the symbolic logic issue as such you are right, but the traditional logic which often used by the God debaters seem have the problems like that. Even what looks like valid arguments could have traps of fallacies. Not suitable tool to rely on for more complicated cases, I was trying to prove. I was not trying to say that the OP argument is valid or correct. As TMF said, the enemy of logic is often, the logic itself.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
I have a couple of basic logic books, but they seem not great. I will see, if I could get hold of the book you recommended. Thanks.
How so?
Quoting Corvus
Which books are those?
When logic is used in the debates, the debaters might get a false sense of security that they might arrive at true conclusions because they are using logical methods. But in many cases, it is not the case. Because logic can hide the traps. Just guessing :D
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
Logic by Wilfrid Hodges
Introduction to Logic by Gensler
Both books are in Amazon, and the 1 star reviews explain the problems with the books in great detail.
I agreed with the reviewer about the books. (the same reviewer for the both books).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0141003146/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0415996511/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
"This book, like other pseudo-logic texts of the type, does inform us that logical arguments require true premises. And of course, the vast majority of the book is focused upon technical logical rules designed to insure that we are able to spot obvious logical contradiction in an argument. Here's the problem with that;I know of no one who will believe an argument which they know is derived from untrue premises, or which contains obvious contradiction. The real problem is that via appeals to authority and emotion we tend to accept premises as true which are not supported by evidence or which are deceptively incomplete. (Very cleverly, Gensler and his ilk teach us what we we already know naturally.)"
Sure, people err, and abuse even simple logic. And logic is often not simple.
Quoting Corvus
Thanks, I'll look at them out if I see them somewhere.
Quotes below are from a third party's comments on a book:
"This book, like other pseudo-logic texts of the type, does inform us that logical arguments require true premises."
'pseudo-logic' is mere and false characterization.
Good for those books. Logical arguments do not require true premises.
"technical logical rules designed to insure that we are able to spot obvious logical contradiction in an argument"
Wrong. The rules are to prevent non sequiturs, and to disallow inferring contradictions from consistent premises.
The writer of the review doesn't understand logic.
"I know of no one who will believe an argument which they know is derived from untrue premises, or which contains obvious contradiction."
The writer fails to understand the difference between evaluation of the validity of an argument and the truth value of the conclusion.
"The real problem is that via appeals to authority and emotion we tend to accept premises as true which are not supported by evidence or which are deceptively incomplete."
Appeals to emotion and authority are informal fallacies. Such fallacies are worth discussing, but they are not in the field of formal logic.
"Gensler and his ilk teach us what we we already know naturally."
Yeah, I don't think so. The writer doesn't even know the difference between inferential validity and factual truth and falsity.
You are quoting from someone who is ignorant.
I was not sure if she was ignorant or not, but there were parts that resonated with my feelings about the books. The reviewer didn't sound like a newbie (she has many Logic books, and read them all) for sure. I am the newbie :D
You just quoted her about the ill-effects of emotion in arguments. Your feelings about the books don't make her arguments about them sound.
Based on the quote you provided, she seems not to understand what she read, thus remaining ignorant.
I don't always quote or post sound arguments only. But the quoted parts are what I felt was good points. I used to believe that one must not start philosophical debates with inferred premises. I still do.
They're not. They reveal fundamental misunderstanding, confusions, and ignorance of the writer.
Do you, then think both books are good books contrary to the negative review details? How would you compare my 2 books to the one you recommended?
I looked only at the tables of contents of the books. The books seem to be meant for general students and to give a first overview of basic logic. My guess is that they are fine for that purpose. I would suggest studying them if you have nothing else. Kalish/Montague/Mar covers much of the same ground, but it's the best introduction I've seen, though probably it's more demanding than the other two books.
I started studying logic on my own. My first logic textbook didn't even have symbolic logic. Mostly about informal fallacies, a bit about syllogisms, and the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic. It was okay I guess. Then I worked through an introductory book on symbolic logic, and I learned a lot. Then I got Kalish/Montague (Mar was not a co-author of that edition). It covered basically the same ground as my first symbolic logic book, but I saw that it did a vastly better job of it. But I will say that I just don't know whether I would have done as well with Kalish/Montague if I hadn't previously read that other symbolic logic book that gave me some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction.
I thought she was not saying Logic is stupid. Rather, she was saying that the books don't mention some important points in Logic. She quotes a few philosophical texts from the other authors and philosophers about logic and how general people study and practice Logic, and why those missed points in the books are critically important.
I have never studied Logic as such in serious manner. Everything I said and wrote about logic was from my common sense and reasoning. Then I thought it couldn't do any harm if I do some reading on logic.
I was then looking for some logic books. There were so many logic books on the market, I could not tell which one is good or bad.
I got the 2x which were randomly chosen, but when I scanned them, thought they are not that great.
I didn't find the writing style interesting or clear.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
What is your the other symbolic logic book before the K/M which gave you some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction?
This is a visual representation of propositions and implications. E.g. 'If x is a cat, then x is an animal', 'If x is not an animal, then x is not a dog' are shown as a picture. You can see that 'If x is a cat, then x is a dog' is false under all possibilities: there is no intersection of the two circles.
____________________
Truth tables will do the same job but for the question you have in mind they may be a bit unwieldy.
Will have a look.
But I also thought the OP argument problem stems from the premise that there is limited scope for the definition of dogs and cats. Simply saying "are animals" is not sufficient definition for them.
So, dogs are animals and dogs bark.
Cats are animals and cats meow.
from more definitions given in the premises, it would have had a true conclusion.
cats are not dogs (they are both animals, but cats don't bark, dogs don't meow)
So, it demonstrates how insufficient premises render wrong conclusions in the argument, even if they look valid.
In God debates, often the premises they start are either wrong and insufficient, hence the argument arrives at the wrong conclusion, or / and it falls into confusion in the middle of reaching the conclusion.
For instance, the wrong and insufficient definition "God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient" or "God is a necessary being" as the premises of the arguments will not only confuse the following arguments but also arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Because if one start ask and analyse all those concepts of God, then it will be clear there is no ground to assert them as true definitions, and even if we infer them as true definitions, the scope of the premises is limited for the arguments and conclusion.
But the conclusion does not follow from the premisses. d->a and c->a does not entail d<->c. All dogs are animals; and all cats are animals; however, no dogs are cats.
The problem is not in the definitions. The problem is that you say a conclusion follows when it does not follow.
To see that it does not follow you need to draw the diagram or write out the truth table: those are the tools we need for this job.
But did you read the new argument with the extra (sufficient) definitions added in the premises then produces the new true conclusion? = cats are not dogs.
Hmmm I would have thought you don't need the diagram, but you just need to add more definitions into the premise making it sufficient and necessary condition. Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical than drawing diagrams in the debates? (if it were debate situations) :)
Had a quick look at the Venn Diagram section of the Gensler book, and it looks OK.
But I was wondering whether the diagram method is only OK for simple arguments with just 1 or 2 premises.
There are often cases of arguments with 10 - 20 premises in the real life arguments. In this case, I wonder if the diagrams could serve as a practical tool for the arguments at all.
Truth tables and Venn diagrams are great tools too. But more for the educational purpose, I feel.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I like to solve these types of problems using a computer programming language. In every language, the variables need to be defined in order to use them. In every logical process the variables used refer to something in the world. They are pre-defined and their definition needs to be taken into account as part of the logical process. So for every logical proposition you need to remember that each scribble needs to be defined prior to the proposition like a=1, b=2, x=a+b, y=(a,b,x) (this is an array and is similar to a category in ordinary language) etc.
Also, if you find that some logical proposition produces a false conclusion, its because some other logical fallacy was made. All logical rules have to be followed - no cherry-picking.
https://ideasinhat.com/2018/11/16/what-is-the-munchhausen-trilemma/
My pleasure. Did you read this :point: New Caledonian Crow?
Sure. I used to do some computer programming myself, and used to use, WHILE .... DO, For x> y DO,
or IF ... THEN and write up FUNCTIONS a lot to carry out checking the conditions.
You know fine well, that to check some complicated conditions, the statements needs many lines of coding to check for all the possible conditions. The use of the variables are essential in the programmings. One condition out of many in the loop or IF THEN sections fails, the whole program fails and comes to halt (if the input is out of boundary set in the variables and error handling code is not implemented), or it will return FALSE value from the functions or routines to the calling modules straight, not even bothering going on checking for the next conditions.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yeah, that was what I have been saying all along. If you get your staring definitions and also any of t he premises wrong, then you can end up with some crazy conclusions as Truth. Dangerous things for sure.
You can always use coding to restrict users to certain conditions and choices, thereby limiting the amount of coding you have to write that checks for "all possible" conditions.
Quoting Corvus
Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic.
No I haven't. I have no much knowledge on the medieval time religious topics. I must go back to Russell's History of Philosophy and do some more readings on the chapter to be able to follow the thread, I think.
Deconstructive use of the word :D (All uses of the problematic and unclear words have been contributed or excused to that term by me recently - xD how convenient )
I tend to be sarcastic to my own writings often - never mind.
:ok: Forget I even mentioned it. It was irrelevant to the discussion.
I opened the thread, but immediately realised the topic is one of the subjects, that I am not familiar with. Time permitting and the background reading done, I am inclined to have another go.
I didn't say she said logic is stupid. I said that what she said about logic is stupid.
Quoting Corvus
SHE claims those are important points. Her remarks reveal that doesn't understand what logic is about.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, typically crank: Argument by compilation of selective quotation.
Meanwhile, perhaps you would pick a quote that you think supports her criticisms of the books.
Before she even gets to the quotes she fires her loose cannon with a claim that is tantamount to saying that not just are the logic books wrong and amiss but that they are pernicious to mankind itself. She's a nutjob.
Quoting Corvus
I'd rather not say, because I think it's not a good book. It wasn't the book in particular that gave me chops, but rather any book with a good number of exercises also would have given me the chops.
"Here's what he does explain:
(1) Logical arguments begin from true premises.
(2) Logical arguments begin from premises and come to conclusions which are free of obvious contradiction."
I will stand corrected, but I don't see how that could be a correct paraphrase of anything Hodges wrote.
(1) Logical arguments don't require true premises. A SOUND argument requires true premises.
An argument is valid iff any model in which the premises are true is a model in which the conclusion is true. Validity does not require that the premises be true in any particular model or even any model at all.
(2) Logical arguments don't ensure contradiction-free conclusions. Rather, a logical argument ensures a contradiction-free conclusion if the premises are contradiction free. It is not required that the premises be contradiction-free. And the word 'obvious' mindlessly thrown in there clouds principle she's stating (though the principle is incorrect anyway).
She's an ignoramus.
It has nothing to do with domains or definitions.
The problem stems from the fact that the argument posted is invalid, as has been explained.
Quoting Corvus
The argument doesn't look valid. It is clearly invalid.
Quoting Corvus
What is your definition of 'true definition'?
What definitions would you add? What sufficient and necessary condition?
Venn diagrams are profoundly useful. But they are limited. There are logical arguments they don't test.
Maybe there's a theorem somewhere that says exactly what is the class of arguments decided by Venn diagrams.
But we do know that truth tables decide all propositional arguments.
What is your definition of 'the complete set of sufficient and necessary propositions'?
"Professor Paul Kreeft offers the following in his book "Socratic Logic", "I have never found anyone except a professional philosopher who actually used symbolic logic in an actual conversation or debate.""
I love that. She's writing on a computer that is enabled by extensive research and application of symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is at the very heart of the invention of the modern computer. It is hard to even imagine the concepts of computer science without symbolic logic or equivalent formalisms.
Reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg one year at the academy awards when she said (paraphrasing), "What good every came from the space program? It has given us nothing", as she was being broadcast live via SATELLITE!
I read it all the time, "Symbolic logic is stupid. It's a waste of time. It's just a bunch of philosophers and mathematicians too absorbed in their formulas to recognize the real world. Nobody needs it". As that is typed into a computer of which its invention, advancements, design, and implementation are filled to the brim with symbolic logic and the programming languages that have come from symbolic logic.
It sounds too harsh to describe someone stupid just by reading her few lines of the book reviews.
There could be just differences in opinions. There were certainly parts that resonated with my ideas about logic in the reviews.
If you looked at the new argument example given, I would have thought everything is clear on the sufficient and necessary conditions for the premises.
True definition, you asked. I was meaning the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise. So it could even qualify as a conclusion if it is self-evident enough, in which case, no further arguments are needed. But it is not possible to have a 100% true definition in many cases. One could only try to come up with the best true definitions.
The example arguments given in the OP and in the thread are simple enough to see the reasons how the premises could become a more sufficient definition by adding another definition i.e. dogs bark, and cats meow into the original definition which was a very wide definition (dogs are animals.)
I would have thought anyone would know what sufficient and necessary definitions as better premises are like.
True definitions are what philosophers are seeking to find and come up with in their thinking and debates process. Sometimes it can be found from defining the concepts, or when the definitions are not self evident enough such as God and God existence problems, then they make up the premises and go through the arguments supporting the premises to arrive at the conclusions.
OK - your comment on Valid arguments doesn't have to have false conclusions. But it would be judged as an inconsistent argument, if the supporting arguments are false or the premises way too loose, false or have no ground, even if valid. Due to that belief many logical debates seem to fall into quarrels rather than carrying on with the debating.
What I wrote here is mostly the points from Critical Thinking and Informal Arguments books, which look more practical and useful than the old traditional logic or symbolic logic in real life arguments and debate usage.
I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see her list of conspiracy theory sources).
* That she is a nutjob doesn't in and of itself entail that her comments about logic are incorrect. Her comments about logic are incorrect anyway. Pointing out that she is a nutjob is just to anecdotally celebrate the great comedy of life.
Quoting Corvus
Not true. Her posted opinions broadcast that she has fundamental misunderstandings.
Quoting Corvus
I can't reasonably say that you shouldn't have ideas about the subject. But, as far as I can tell, you know virtually nothing about formal logic, so I don't how you would form ideas, especially ideas that resonate with wildly overopinionated views of a poster.
Quoting Corvus
You could present your notion again so that it is salient for me, keeping in mind that I'm asking specifically for a definition.
Quoting Corvus
What is "the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise"?
Are you familiar with the basics of the subject of definitions in logic, even if only in non-formal sense? (For formal senses, I know that you know nothing about that, but maybe you'll get to it eventually. I recommend Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic' as the best explanation of formal definitions I've found.)
Quoting Corvus
Inserting in your definition of 'true definition:
"not possible to have a 100% right and proper definition that fits for the better premise in many cases"
I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
Quoting Corvus
Those aren't definitions. They're predications. And I don't see why you think they address the invalidity of the original argument.
Quoting Corvus
That's not a definition. It's a predication.
Quoting Corvus
I have never seen that notion mentioned in my readings in logic, though I can't rule out that such mentions exist.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, some important philosophy is concerned with that. But (1) we can ask such philosophers what they mean by 'true definition', (2) I would like to know your own definition. You merely deferred it to 'right and proper that fits the premises', which is hardly any more defining than 'true'. And it turns out that you conflate definition with predication, (3) In formal logic, we do need a formal, not merely open-ended philosophical, definition of 'definition'.
Quoting Corvus
No, I said they don't have to have true conclusions.
Quoting Corvus
I'm sorry, but you don't understand even the basic concepts of validity and inconsistency.
Arguments aren't inconsistent. Sets of statements or statements themselves may be inconsistent.
Statements can be:
True (or at least true in a given model) [semantic]
False (or at least false in a given model) [semantic]
Logically true. True in every model [semantic]
Logically false. False in every model [semantic]
Contingent. True in some models and false in other models. [semantic]
Consistent. Doesn't imply a contradiction [syntactic]
Inconsistent. Imply a contradiction [syntactic]
Arguments can be:
Valid. Conclusion is entailed by premises.
Invalid. Conclusion is not entailed by premises.
Sound. Valid and all the premises are true.
And I don't recall seeing another word for this, so I use 'irrefragable':
Irrefragable. Valid and all the premises are logically true.
Quoting Corvus
There are books that are as mixed up about the concepts as you are?
If you had read anything philosophical in your life, should you not allow that other people could have different opinions about anything of their own? Not just logic? Just because she had different opinion about logic, that doesn't mean what she wrote is stupid, or she herself is stupid. When someone describes other people as stupid without justified ground, it reveals more about the describer and his psychological state and motives, than the other people who were described as stupid.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
I feel that the Informal Arguments books have far more practical ideas than the simple traditional or symbolic logic. If you read the symbolic logic books again, then you will notice those books are full of boring dry useless contents, which naturally make normal people feel logic itself is just an useless boring dry subject, which makes people more confused, when trying to apply it to real world situations.
If you read a couple of old symbolic logic books, and take all the narrow concepts from there, judge other people based on the symbolic logic book authors world concept, then of course everyone will look stupid and mixed up.
But if you read any other philosophical books with an open critical mind, then you will realise that philosophy is far more than dog fighting with symbolic logic jargons.
You must try to look at the problems with your own reasoning first, and if needed, create your own definitions, if the book definitions are not adequate, and apply them to the real philosophical issue in the world. I mean really, there must be more in life and philosophy, the world than those symbols and concepts in the books? Logic must exist to assist in representing and clarifying the world and arguments, not the other way around. Your arguments sound to me the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts.
There is a huge philosophical and logical difference when you say,
X is stupid.
and
X is a book.
X is stupid means your feeling about X, not factual or logical statement. (one could be stupid on something, but genius in other subjects, and vice versa. I can give hundreds of real life examples on this. )
You heard, saw or read something about X, (or as you insist, you said it was what said about logic, not herself - by which some people might feel even more insulted getting her own writing described stupid by someone who doesn't really know anything about her) and made some private judgement inside your head, that X is stupid.
It is not an objective worldly fact, but your psychological state inside your head.
Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence?
But if you say, X is a book, then that could be an objective worldly statement, which can be proved objectively by anyone by looking at it, hearing the description about it.
I wouldn't spit out my own psychological statements which are private to me in the public, if it sounds unfair and groundless, because I know it will not be accepted as an objective and infallible statement by others, and it would be unfair insult to X, which could be even immoral act for anyone to impose on X.
That is the first and most basic criteria of not being mixed up in philosophical logic.
I meant to include the word 'don't'. I meant to say that I don't think I said she is stupid. And that is correct. I did not say she is stupid. I said that what she wrote is stupid.
Quoting Corvus
Of course. And we should allow that one may have good grounds for thinking that certain of those opinions are stupid and to say so. Moreover, I gave detailed explanation why I consider certain of her remarks to be stupid. More importantly, they're ignorant.
Surely you don't think all opinions are equally intelligent and don't deserve to be called out for being stupid opinions. Or do you?
Quoting Corvus
I already answered that. You skipped my answer so that you could merely reassert. What she wrote is stupid not merely because her opinions differ from mine, but on account of the reasons I specifically explained.
Quoting Corvus
First, I didn't say she is stupid. I said that what she wrote is stupid. It's possible that she is intelligent but has blocks in understanding a certain subject. I sometimes write and say and do stupid things. And I have blocks in understanding certain things. But I am not stupid. And she might not be stupid.
Second, that someone says that another person wrote stupid things or even says the person is stupid, doesn't in and of itself entail very much about psychological states or motives. When I say that Donald Trump is a stupid, ignorant, grotesquely dishonest man, that's a true statement about Trump, and it hardly says much about me other than that I am willing to state an obvious fact.
Quoting Corvus
First, I think informal logic is vitally important. I think it crucial to basic critical thinking in everyday life and in fields of study. I wish it were required starting in elementary school.
Second, my point went right over your head like a 747. You had conveyed some terribly mixed up ideas about logic and you said you got those ideas from a logic book. My point is that I bet the book didn't say those things but instead you misconstrued or misremembered the book. But if the book really did say those things, then, yes, that book is quite bad.
Quoting Corvus
(1) The point of the books is to explain the subject. The books don't have to be entertaining.
(2) The books may be boring to you but not to many other people.
(3) I already commented on the utter usefulness of symbolic, including that you are now using a computer built from symbolic logic.
(4) Symbolic logic improves reasoning skills not just abstractly but in everyday life.
(5) Logic even makes me laugh sometimes. There is sometimes even true wit in the way the formulas are constructed and the way the proofs and arguments unfold. Even the prose of the authors. Halmos, Quine, and Boolos and others. Smullyan! Even the arch dryness of Alonzo Church. The ingeniousness and surprises delight my mind and my soul. The achievements of logicians and mathematicians inspire me. Their intelligence, creativity, standards of rigor and honesty are to be cherished. The enlightenment that logic embodies inspires me. And there is also the lore - the historical twists and turns, the biographies, the rivalries, the jokes, the epigrams, and all that stuff. The history of logic from ancient to modern, from all over the world and from many cultures.
(6) And there is philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy about logic, and philosophy of language. I can't even fathom the richness. And understanding those does require understanding something about the math and logic the philosophers are talking about. Also the application of formal logic to philosophy itself as a tool for clarifying arguments, for making the questions, problems and arguments rigorous, for providing certain objective contexts for philosophers to propose ideas, to inquire about them and to debate them.
(7) And the pure mental pleasure of understanding something you didn't understand before. The pure pleasure of an idea or proof finally making sense to you after you have struggled to grasp it for so long. And the pure mental pleasure of being introduced to new ideas; constructivism, intuitionism, free logic, multi valued logic, dialetheism ... ideas you never could have imagined. And they're all there just waiting for you to open the books, to read the journal articles, and if you're lucky, to take a class with a good teacher, and if you're really lucky, to take a class with one of the great minds of our modern world.
(8) Gaining the vocabulary and understanding of concepts so that you can talk about them with other people. So that you can present and explain ideas to other people, and so that you can learn from people that know more than you do. So that you can have a buddy to work on problems with.
Quoting Corvus
(1) Who do you think you're talking to? You are quite presumptuous to think you need to tell me that philosophy is more than symbolic logic. Moreover, I haven't posted anything that could be remotely suggestive that I think philosophy is just symbolic logic.
(2) 'dog fighting'. To what are you referring? Our discussion? You have been using terminology in a way that doesn't even make sense. I have given you corrections you could use.
(3) 'jargons'. The terminologies of symbolic logic are not mere jargon. The terminologies are from rigorous definitions. And logicians don't just throw around a bunch of words. Rather, they use terminology meaningfully and communicatively.
Quoting Corvus
First I apprise myself of existing definitions. Then if I have concept that I haven't seen defined, then I do construct a definition. I do that in logic and math pretty often. And I understand the rules for definitions, especially as I understand their purpose - the criteria of eliminability and non-creativity.
Quoting Corvus
I'm not a philosopher (I'm not a logician or mathematician either). Though I do think about certain questions and sometimes try to formulate them explicitly.
Quoting Corvus
That essentially is a HUGE strawman. I have never written anything that remotely suggests that "the world should exist for symbolic logic" You are ridiculous to say that my arguments even "sound like" that.
The inference was drawn from your comment about the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking books. The books cover wide range of topics to be dealt by the critical thinking system - philosophy, the world and arguments and debates and daily lives. It is far more interesting reads than the symbolic logic books. They are not some mixed up ideas, as you suggested.
First, I didn't say anyone is stupid (other than Donald Trump in the previous post). Anyway, claiming that someone is stupid may not be just expressing a feeling. Donald Trump is a terribly stupid person, no matter what my feeling about that is.
Quoting Corvus
Of course. And not just in subjects but also in life. For example, Trump is a genius as a demagogue and as a big time grifter.
Quoting Corvus
First, I didn't say the poster about the book is stupid. I said what she wrote is stupid and that she's an ignoramus (obviously regarding logic; she could be wonderfully informed about certain other subjects).
Second, I did explain very clearly how what she wrote is stupid and ignorant.
Third, it is a ridiculous standard that one should not be believed unless one were INFALLIBLE with evidence.
Fourth, talking about throwing around jargon. 'ontological'. Oh come on, descriptions about people aren't ontology.
It is not strawman at all. Again your private psychological judgement from your closed point of view. I am just responding to the parts which I feel I have things to say in the shortest time I can afford. I could sit down here, and go through all the points you put down in the posts, and reply to every point if I want to, and if I have time to. But I don't have time to do that. I must also work to make some living too.
Anyways, your argument points are all from the books, and anyone can read the books and learn. But it is up to the reader either to accept the book's points or go his own way and establish his own logic too. You seem to be denying the latter case, just blindly following the books and what those authors said. If I thought your argumental points are worth reading carefully with time and effort dropping the other tasks in daily life, then I would do so.
All your points from some old logic books, are not really practical or useful in real applications such as debating or clarifying philosophical problems. I do read books not to accept them blindly just because it says so, but my readings are always with a critical mind that if I agree I will accept, if not will abandon anyway.
Quoting Corvus
No, I did not claim they are mixed up ideas. I asked a question sarcastically. And you just now skipped my remarks about that in the post:
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
And even IF (though I did not) lambaste a couple of books that would not remotely entail that "the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts."
And even IF (though I do note) thought that informal logic is not good, that would not remotely entail that "the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts", since I might think there are other subjects just as good as or EVEN better than formal logic.
To recap:
If I thought informal logic is hooey, then that doesn't entail that I think the world should live for formal logic.
If I insulted a couple of books, then that doesn't entail that I think the world should live for formal logic.
And I did not insult those two books. My point is that I bet you misunderstood them because I can't imagine that a book on informal logic could be as mixed up about the subject as you are.
And in fact, I love informal logic and I think it is vital. And I told you that in the post above.
Ontology just means the study of the way things exist either in material or mental world, nothing sophisticated or complicated. Have you read any philosophy books? Could you please list what philosophy books you have read in your life?
QUOTE ME. Quote me where you think I claimed that one should not establish a new logic system. Hell, I encourage anyone who would do that.
You are strawmaning me yet again.
Quoting Corvus
First, you have no statements from me that suggest that I have not read about logic critically or that I accept everything in the books I read. You are fabulating about me now.
Second, the large part of the material in textbooks in symbolic logic is not something one accpets or rejects but rather it's explanations of abstract systems.
Quoting Corvus
First, how would you know what is old and what is contemporary in formal logic when you know nothing about formal logic?!
Second, the points that have come up in discussion are pretty basic, so it's not as if the context has changed so dramatically in recent years.
Third, that books are old doesn't entail that they don't hold valuable information or insight.
Quoting Corvus
On what basis would you say that when you don't know anything about the subject of formal logic?! Sheesh!
Quoting Corvus
I would not deny you reading what you find interesting and not reading what you don't find interesting. That has nothing to do with anything I've said. I am not even remotely debating what should be interesting to people. I don't even have any concept of what should be interesting to people. .
You are ridiculous. And what is really ironic that you are so hopped up about informal logic yet you are blowing it with informal logic left and right. You argue like a bum: blatant non sequiturs all over the place, ignoring refutations given you so that you can just go on to reassert and reassert what has already been refuted, strawmaning, and moving the goalposts
Please, commonplace discussion about whether certain people are stupid or not is not ontology.
I never said that is ontology. Please read the post again.
I said, if you said X is a book, then it is possible to find the ontological ground for it.
X is stupid? It can be also argued that the statement existed inside your mind only - so depending on what your ontological stand is, it is also possible. Are you an idealist or materialist? See your old little symbolic logic has been confusing and muddling your thoughts.
You started this argument, not me. I am just responding to your arguments.
It doesn't matter whether you said she was stupid or what she said was stupid. The point was that your statement was your private mental feeling or judgement or state, not the external worldly fact or object. That is the only point.
Where did I misunderstand you previously?
Quoting Corvus
"objective ontological infallible evidence"
Only by the wildest stretch of a notion of what 'ontological' means would we say that talking about whether someone is stupid involves ontological evidence. Or what even is ontological evidence as opposed to other evidence?
More importantly you skipped my remark that it is a ridiculous standard to hold that convincing should require infallibility. And as to the fact of what people believe, obviously people believe all kind of things, and often on good grounds, without basis of evidence that infallibly proves.
Quoting Corvus
It's possible to find the empirical basis.
What is your distinction between empirical evidence and ontological evidence when it comes to talking about whether a certain person is stupid?
Quoting Corvus
Empty razzle dazzle followed by a gratuitous, false, and sophomoric attempt at an insult.
You posted links to another poster on the Internet. I critiqued her posts and I said what I think of her postings overall, including that what she said is stupid. And then more back and forth between us in which I explained your errors in the subject. That doesn't warrant that I should be strawmanned or lied about.
Quoting Corvus
It matters to me that I not be represented as saying something I did not say.
Quoting Corvus
Obviously it's my opinion that what she said is stupid. But I gave ample explanation supporting that opinion.
Sure. You can say whatever you want. You are a grown up adult responsible for your own acts and sayings and decisions. Only thing I was saying is that, it is not a philosophically justifiable, acceptable or meaningful statement. (1st conclusion) That's all.
So from that premise (subsequent premise from the 1st conclusion), whatever you put down as your arguments (even if they were true), the whole of your arguments and the conclusion was inconsistent and invalid from the theories of the Informal Logic. A very practical and useful theory and logic I would day :)
It's a statement about the quality of the content of a certain piece of writing. Such a statement would not ordinarily be subjected to full standards of philosophical justification.
And what is really ironic is that you are all over the place making claims about me that are factually incorrect, and for which you don't even have probable evidence. Moreover a whole bunch of informal fallacies from you.
And you continue to skip that I gave explanation for why I say what she wrote is stupid. What is the name for the fallacy of just skipping rebuttals and reasserting over and over what has already been rebutted?
Quoting Corvus
No, that is not all. You're leaving out 'ontological' now and especially 'infallible'.
And I wonder whether you have an answer for my question: What do you take to be the difference between empirical evidence and ontological evidence?
Quoting Corvus
What specific argument are you referring to? My argument that what she wrote is stupid? You haven't shown any fault in it. You haven't even mentioned any aspect of it other than its conclusion.
Informal logic deals with a wide range of considerations, but, I think, most saliently in its critical considerations ('critical' in the sense of criticism of arguments), non sequitur (in various forms as labelled with names for fallacies) and rhetoric and its persuasion.
You've not shown that my remarks are "invalid" in those respects. And I remind you that even such things as emotional language don't entail that other parts of an argument are not good. As for inconsistency, you have not shown that there is any set of my statements that entail a contradiction. You are full of bluster, and that's not all.
This is the limitation of the symbolic logic. They dictate that every argument must fit into some set forms. But most arguments in real life do not fit into any forms. You must infer the premises and arguments from the dialogues between the protagonists. You can make up premises, arguments and conclusions from even newspaper articles, poems and simple daily conversations ... etc etc in informal logic.
Because of those limitations, many people think that symbolic logic is not practical for real life applications, to which I agree.
I wasn't talking about formal logic; I was talking about informal logic.
And formal logic doesn't preclude that we have whatever variety of formal systems we want with different forms. And formal logic doesn't prelude that we may construct new system with new forms for arguments that can't be formalized in existing systems. And I don't think that logicians generally disallow that informal logic plays an important role in many contexts in which formal logic has not developed adequate methods or in which restriction to formal logic would be impractical.
Could it be that you just don't like formal logic and so you are responding to it, without knowing anything about it, with false preconceptions about it?
Quoting Corvus
A great amount of everyday reasoning could be formalized, but It is not claimed that all everyday reasoning fits into available forms in formal logic. Moreover, probably the main use of formal logic is in mathematics, computer science, linguistics, and also in the physical sciences, engineering, and in philosophy.
Quoting Corvus
You're doing it again! Utterly skipping what has been presented to you so that you can just reassert and reassert over and over that which has already been rebutted.
Again, for about the fourth time now:
You are typing into a computer that could not have been conceived, engineered, and programmed without formal logic. How more "real life" can that be?
Again, your private feelings and mental states, utterly groundless and unfounded. Rejected and committed to the bin, just like your 1st statement.
I am not suggesting that you need to be interested in it. But your arguments about it and your claims about its inferiority and lack of application are based in sheer ignorance.
A splendid description of your postings here.
And you're an abysmal interlocuter. No answers from you on a number of questions I've posed that are at the very heart of the discussion. And about your lying about me.
Mother of all inferiority complex is from someone who describes other people or other peoples' writings as stupid on the basis of solely groundless personal feelings.
One couldn't be mistaken him for himself, and others. Please read the post again.
That is itself a groundless claim about my mental states.
And you skipped again that I did give specific grounds for claiming that her posts are stupid.
I was stating a general principle of psychology. It seems you who links the principle to yourself.
Ridiculously coy and juvenile dishonesty.
Did you forget already? I am just responding with common sense to your emotionally charged illogical anti philosophical degrading comments.
No more your personal private feelings please. Not even funny anymore.
Bad Eliza.
Funny terablachiomera.