Page 3 of 5

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:43 pm Classical logic is a product of its arbitrarily chosen axioms.
Read my introduction again. I don't talk about "Classical logic" at all.
EB

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:19 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:43 pm Classical logic is a product of its arbitrarily chosen axioms.
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.

Or part 7 where Aristotle talks about excluded middle? I pointed you to Diaconescu's theorem because of LEM - its disregard is central to intuitionists.

If you accept Aristotle's axioms, then you reject the logical schools of intuitionism, dialethism and Łukasiewicz logic and you are stuck in Aristotle, Frege and Boole's two-valued logical universe. On a fuzzy-match any logic which accepts Aristotle's three axioms is Classical logic give or take a few small differences.

So if you don't mean Classical/Aristotelian logic, and you don't mean intuitionistic logic, and you don't mean fuzzy logic, and you don't mean mathematical logic, and you don't mean dialethic logic, 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.
Which is why I pointed out to you that any "formal model" of Logic (with a capital L) would be a metalogic!
And any "formal model" of Mathematics (with a capital M) would be a metamathematic.
Both metalogic and metamathematics are still formal systems.
ALL formal systems are still expressed as formal languages.

Ohhh, I forgot - you don't read links. So I guess you expect me to convince you that you are wrong in a battle of wits and eloquent argumentation, rather than you convincing yourself through reading?

It kinda begs a question. Why should your ignorance be other people's problem?

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:30 pm
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.
Exactly. Logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings.
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?
EB

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:29 pm
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?
It seems a psychological constant that people who can't argue their views blame others for not understanding their views.

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.

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?

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:03 am
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.
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.

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.

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.

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. So again, why should I care?
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?
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.
EB

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 pm
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.
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.

It says nothing meaningful. You could just as well say "living as the objective performance and manifest capability of human beings", then follow it up with the question: Why still no science of living?
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.
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.

I don't think it's even possible to misinterpret meaningless words.
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.
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 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.
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 So again, why should I care?
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"?

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 pm 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.

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

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 pm 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.

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
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?

You are so deeply misguided you can't even tell that your simple question is wrong.

The use/application of logic (as objective human performance) is the phenomenon of computation.
The etymology of the word 'computer' is a human job description and human brains are generally considered to be wetware computers.
We have a well-developed theory of computation which concerns itself with the question What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?.

Computational science is now commonly considered a third mode of science, complementing and adding to experimentation/observation and theory.

All of the above adds up to a simple conclusion: Computer science is the "science of logic".

Is that's not the science you are asking for? Is it not living up to your expectations? Tell us why so we can do better.

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:16 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 pm 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.

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
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?

You are so deeply misguided you can't even tell that your simple question is wrong.
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.

You don't seem to understand what is a logical argument. All you can do is assert I'm wrong without articulating an actual logical argument of why I would be wrong.

Your argument here is a good example. It is not a logical argument. You are merely asserting that my premise is wrong. You don't even try to prove that, assuming my premise correct, my conclusion would be wrong.

Now, to the question of the truth of my premise. I start by defining what kind of logic I am talking about, namely logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. This is a definition, not a premise. There is nothing to argue about. There is nothing to prove wrong. My question is about i]logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings[/i], not about anything else. If you can't address my question, just fuck off.

Of course, you yourself think that all there is to logic is "computers". LOL. You know, this is the most idiotic piece of brainless drivel I've ever come across. You see, logic was discovered 2,500 years ago, at least, of course by Aristotle.

This was a discovery, not an invention. Aristotle has been remarkably clear as to what he meant and there is a long line of distinguished thinkers who studied Aristotle. You should look at that.

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.

Thus, logic existed well before computers. 2,500 years before computers. Second, Aristotle only formalised what he understood of the way that people reasoned when they reasoned logically, In other words, Aristotle described logic as a i]as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings[/i]. And that was 2,500 years ago.

You would have a point if you could prove that the only logic in the sense Aristotle meant was to be found in computers. However, this is disproved by this fact that logic was discovered by Aristotle 2,500 years before the invention of computers.

So, no, logic can only be defined as a as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. Computers are wholly irrelevant to that fact.

Now, you also clearly believe that the computer sciences somehow are the science of logic.

To see the computer sciences as the science of logic is of course also idiotic in itself. There is a logic to computers, sure, but toasters, too, have a logic of their own. The logic of toasters. So, why not the science of toasters as the science of logic? See?

Sure, the logic of computers is more complex and interesting and full of potential than that of toasters, but it is still not the logic of human beings.

However, the crucial point in this regard is that your are equivocating on the word "logic" as I defined it in my question, since you use the word "logic" here to mean the logic of computers.

Of course, you would have a point if you could prove that all there is to logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings is properly described by the computer sciences, or by the logic of computers. However, there is of course no good reason to believe that.

We would have a good reason if we had a proof. But to get a proof, we would need first to do the science of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. Maybe we would arrive at the conclusion that all there is to logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings is best described by the computer sciences or by computers themselves. But, as I said, there is no science of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings and so there is no proof for 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.
No. The Wiki page doesn’t say anything to support your claim.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm The etymology of the word 'computer' is a human job description
Irrelevant.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm and human brains are generally considered to be wetware computers.
Metaphorical, unscientific, irrelevant.
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?.
Sure. Completely irrelevant. There is a full theory for toasters, too.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm Computational science is now commonly considered a third mode of science, complementing and adding to experimentation/observation and theory.
Completely fuzzy and completely irrelevant.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm All of the above adds up to a simple conclusion: Computer science is the "science of logic".
No. It doesn’t add up to anything except perhaps for the naive and the brain dead dogmatic.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:33 pm Is that's not the science you are asking for? Is it not living up to your expectations? Tell us why so we can do better.
Done.
EB

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:22 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:16 am Of course, you yourself think that all there is to logic is "computers".
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 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.
This is demonstrably wrong.

If logic is an objective performance and capability of humans then humans performed logic long before Aristotle was born.
Obviously! Because the brain performs logic/computation and human ancestors have had brains for at least 10 million years.

You are clearly confusing digital computers (which are a recent human invention) with wetware computers (which are products of nature)

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:56 am
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.
Bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ ... istemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

And this one in particular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāṇini
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
What is a formal system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
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.
You seem to idolise Aristotle for some reason, but you can't even tell us why. Maybe it's just a repressed sexual desire?

Or maybe it's because the Roman empire subsumed Greek intellectualism which influenced development throughout the Western World. And so your idols were chosen for you by your society long before you were even born.

If India had colonised what is modern-day France, I am pretty sure you would be idolising Pāṇini instead of Aristotle. And you would probably be making this argument in Sanskrit.

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:10 pm
I am afraid that consistent application of logic is not desirable in the mainstream:( Namely, if we use consistently logic, we can not consider about Big Bang at all. Even if we omit the questions concerning reason/initiation of BB (from Nothing), we are not able to put any explanation why only specific elementary particle are produced, why particle can apeared only as couple, why there are only limited cases of forces..., when “Nothing” can not limit the following developtment of matter...This is btw reason why I can see BB as a result of the Future “cooling” - the Future contains a DNA of potential matter, of the History...

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pm
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
Logic is its own science. You might as well ask why no science of science.
What would this thing look like exactly?

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:28 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pm Logic is its own science. You might as well ask why no science of science.
What would this thing look like exactly?
It would look exactly like introspection/self-reflection looks like at individual level. Logic already has it

The challenge isn't the subject of enquiry - the challenge is the perspective from which the observation is being made.

In every other case the scientist is always on the "outside" of their subject's mind, so what is the scientist supposed to examine exactly?
Take an MRI while you are "doing logic"?

### Re: Why still no science of logic?

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:57 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pm Logic is its own science.