Read my introduction again. I don't talk about "Classical logic" at all.
EB
You keep referring to Aristotle when you are trying to articulate what you mean by "logic", and you keep drawing a distinction without a difference (in my view) between logic and mathematics.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:17 pmRead my introduction again. I don't talk about "Classical logic" at all.
EB
Which is why I pointed out to you that any "formal model" of Logic (with a capital L) would be a metalogic!Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm 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.
Exactly. Logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:19 pm then what the hell do you mean by 'logic'?
In your OP you literally said:Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm 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.
It seems a psychological constant that people who can't argue their views blame others for not understanding their views.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:30 pm It seems a psychological constant that people who can't argue their views will link to irrelevant websites.
In other words, you can't be bothered to try and understand the simple phrase logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings but feel good about me wasting my time reading irrelevant material?
That will be because that phrase isn't meant to point at any problem at all. As is obvious in my post, it is a straightforward expression of my legitimate assumption that it is true that there is something which is logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:29 pm It is clear that you are looking for answers, but you are failing to elucidate what the problem or the question is. The simple phrase "logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings" doesn't point to any obvious problems or raise any interesting questions.
Either I do or I do not but you're not articulating anything relevant to that. You're not even addressing my point beyond making a vague and vacuous suggestion that, surely, somehow, I'm wrong. Come back when you can think of something intelligent to say.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:29 pm Some of the manifest capabilities of the human mind are arithmetic, pattern recognition (visual and auditory), persistence and recall of information (e.g memory), signal processing. Broadly, all of those fall under the domain of computation and they all have corresponding fields of on-going or well-established scientific research.
Yet you still ask the question "Why no science of logic?"
You are either ignorant of the various areas of research, or you don't consider it to be answering the question you are asking. Perhaps you are asking a stupid question?
Since you are talking about a science of logic, would you say that this truth is empirically testable and falsifiable? Because if you answer "no" I have some bad news for you... It's just a truism.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:03 am That will be because that phrase isn't meant to point at any problem at all. As is obvious in my post, it is a straightforward expression of my legitimate assumption that it is true that there is something which is logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings.
You seem to have be in the habit of blaming others for your failures. Your truism is not even wrong. That's not exactly conducive to any rigorous scientific discussion.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:03 am So your point here is entirely bogus. It is based not even on a misunderstanding of what I say but on your deliberate misinterpretation of what I say. Not exactly conducive to any rational debate about anything.
No. It doesn't identify a problem. It only begs a question. Should there be a science of logic and why?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:03 am Further, your claim that it "doesn't point to any obvious problems or raise any interesting questions" just ignores that I asked a question, "Why still not science of logic?", and that this question clearly and obviously identifies a problem.
That's the thing. You haven't identified a problem. You have just tangled yourself up in a linguistic mess that doesn't leat do anything that can be subjected to scientific enquiry. That is the problem I am pointing out.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:03 am You may disagree with either my assumption about the kind of logic I am talking about or the magnitude of the problem my question identifies but you're not articulating anything relevant to that.
I don't know. That's precisely the question you need to answer. Why do you care about a science of logic? Why is the absence of such science a "problem"?
I asked a simple question.
OK, but given the choice of being an idiot and doubling down on your intellectual disability, could you at least try to be an idiot?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pmI asked a simple question.
And one you still haven't understood at all.
Also, nobody cares that you should claim that my idea implicit in my question that logic can be the object of a scientific investigation is somehow wrong. Any idiot can make claims, and you certainly seem to be used to this impressive feat of imagination.
What people might care about would be if you could articulate a rational argument in support of your claim. You know, what a forum is for?
But you can't do that because first you don't understand the question, and second you clearly don't have the brain power required to make anything like a rational argument. All you are able to do is loose yourself into a litany of vacuous, irrelevant, futile and pathetic claims only very vaguely related to what people actually say. Any idiot can do that.
EB
Your argument here is like denying that what I call "the Moon" exists on the ground that what you call "the Moon" is what I call "the Sun". As a logical argument, that's just plain idiotic.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pmOK, but given the choice of being an idiot and doubling down on your intellectual disability, could you at least try to be an idiot?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pmI asked a simple question.
And one you still haven't understood at all.
Also, nobody cares that you should claim that my idea implicit in my question that logic can be the object of a scientific investigation is somehow wrong. Any idiot can make claims, and you certainly seem to be used to this impressive feat of imagination.
What people might care about would be if you could articulate a rational argument in support of your claim. You know, what a forum is for?
But you can't do that because first you don't understand the question, and second you clearly don't have the brain power required to make anything like a rational argument. All you are able to do is loose yourself into a litany of vacuous, irrelevant, futile and pathetic claims only very vaguely related to what people actually say. Any idiot can do that.
EB
You are so deeply misguided you can't even tell that your simple question is wrong.
No. The Wiki page doesn’t say anything to support your claim.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm The use/application of logic (as objective human performance) is the phenomenon of computation.
Irrelevant.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm The etymology of the word 'computer' is a human job description
Metaphorical, unscientific, irrelevant.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm and human brains are generally considered to be wetware computers.
Sure. Completely irrelevant. There is a full theory for toasters, too.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm We have a well-developed theory of computation which concerns itself with the question What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?.
Completely fuzzy and completely irrelevant.
No. It doesn’t add up to anything except perhaps for the naive and the brain dead dogmatic.
Done.
No. All there is to logic is computation. Any physical system capable of computation is a computer. The human brain is only one kind of computer.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:16 am Of course, you yourself think that all there is to logic is "computers".
This is demonstrably wrong.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:16 am You see, logic was discovered 2,500 years ago, at least, of course by Aristotle. Thus, logic existed well before computers. 2,500 years before computers.
Bullshit.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:16 am Without Aristotle, it is also likely mankind would now be totally ignorant of logic altogether, if what happened in the rest of the world is any indication, i.e. nobody else re-discovered logic. And subsequent thinkers only re-discovered Aristotle, not logic itself.
What is a formal system?Pāṇini's theory of morphological analysis was more advanced than any equivalent Western theory before the 20th century. His treatise is generative and descriptive, uses metalanguage and meta-rules, and has been compared to the Turing machine wherein the logical structure of any computing device has been reduced to its essentials using an idealized mathematical model. Pāṇini's grammar is the world's first formal system
You seem to idolise Aristotle for some reason, but you can't even tell us why. Maybe it's just a repressed sexual desire?A formal system is used to infer theorems from axioms according to a set of rules. These rules used to carry out the inference of theorems from axioms are known as the logical calculus of the formal system. A formal system is essentially an "axiomatic system". A formal system may represent a well-defined system of abstract thought.
Logic is its own science. You might as well ask why no science of science.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm Why no science of logic?
By logic, I mean deductive 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?
EB
It would look exactly like introspection/self-reflection looks like at individual level. Logic already has it
You clearly didn't read my first post. Read again, more carefully:
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.
Where would be the problem?
Like cognitive science for example. It already exists. The only problem is that it doesn't qualify as a science of logic because cognitive scientists merely assume as correct the definition of logic proposed by mathematicians, even though mathematicians never conducted any scientific investigation of logic (as i defined it in my first post).