Why still no science of logic?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:03 am
The One True Description) is always a human construct influenced by all the things that influence evolved social animals. The very tool you are using to describe reality and organize it in your head is inseparable from human knowledge, belief, wish, feeling or action. Language.
At least we agree on the major premise, even if we disagree on everything else.

It appears you do not believe human beings are volitional (i.e. that every thing they think and do must be consciously chosen). I'm not criticizing that, I think most philosophers actually deny true volition. If I'm wrong about your view please correct me.

Nothing determines what a volitional creature thinks or does, not heredity, not society, not feelings or anything else. Of course one's choices are limited by the limits of their knowledge, and their beliefs will be the basis of their choices, but what one believes is chosen.

Language doe not determine anything. It is only a tool or method by which human beings identify things and their nature. There is no knowledge without language.

If you do not agree that human beings are volitional, you will disagree with all of that, of course.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:03 am
To sum it all up in one metaphor - the map is not the territory. It can never be the territory for at least two reasons. ...
I assume you do not travel much. The map is not the territory, it is a description of the territory. If you choose to go anywhere in that territory, you cannot go in just any direction to get there. If you want to know which direction you must travel to get to a desired destination, you'll have to consult the map.

Here's my metaphor. The territory is reality. Knowledge is one's map of that territory which makes it possible to negotiate it.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
It appears you do not believe human beings are volitional (i.e. that every thing they think and do must be consciously chosen). I'm not criticizing that, I think most philosophers actually deny true volition. If I'm wrong about your view please correct me.

Nothing determines what a volitional creature thinks or does, not heredity, not society, not feelings or anything else. Of course one's choices are limited by the limits of their knowledge, and their beliefs will be the basis of their choices, but what one believes is chosen.
I do not believe the volition of human beings is a dichotomy. And it's trivial to demonstrate your error - autonomic nervous system. Your breathing, your heart beating, your kidneys working. That's not "consciously chosen".
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Language doe not determine anything. It is only a tool or method by which human beings identify things and their nature. There is no knowledge without language.
This is a point I cannot accept either. A toddler cannot speak for the fist 2 years of its life. Some don't even develop the capacity for speech until ages of 5 even. Yet you cannot say to me that a 4 year old doesn't know how to use the toilet, how to con you out of candy and how to satisfy its thirst.

This is the same way science works. Understanding a phenomenon comes before naming a phenomenon.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
If you do not agree that human beings are volitional, you will disagree with all of that, of course.
Human beings are volitional. But that's not all the variables.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Here's my metaphor. The territory is reality. Knowledge is one's map of that territory which makes it possible to negotiate it.
Is there any requirement for one person's map to be comprehensible to another for it to be "knowledge"?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by RCSaunders » Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
It appears you do not believe human beings are volitional (i.e. that every thing they think and do must be consciously chosen). I'm not criticizing that, I think most philosophers actually deny true volition. If I'm wrong about your view please correct me.

Nothing determines what a volitional creature thinks or does, not heredity, not society, not feelings or anything else. Of course one's choices are limited by the limits of their knowledge, and their beliefs will be the basis of their choices, but what one believes is chosen.
I do not believe the volition of human beings is a dichotomy.
What dichotomy. Volition is an attribute of the human mind, and aspect of one's nature as a human being. There is no dichotomy.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am
And it's trivial to demonstrate your error - autonomic nervous system. Your breathing, your heart beating, your kidneys working. That's not "consciously chosen".
In discussions with grown-ups it is not usually required to explain every obvious thing. Nevertheless, this is from my article, "Mind:"
Volition (conscious choice) is not only possible to human beings, but necessary. A human being cannot do anything, that can be chosen, without consciously choosing it. Of course, this does not include the involuntary actions such as reflexes or normal biological functions which are not chosen. Without choosing, a human being cannot do anything we consider human action from thinking, to eating a meal, to inventing an airplane.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Language doe not determine anything. It is only a tool or method by which human beings identify things and their nature. There is no knowledge without language.
This is a point I cannot accept either. A toddler cannot speak for the fist 2 years of its life. Some don't even develop the capacity for speech until ages of 5 even. Yet you cannot say to me that a 4 year old doesn't know how to use the toilet, how to con you out of candy and how to satisfy its thirst.
Really!? Both of my sons spoke before they were two and my youngest in complete sentences shortly after his second birthday. Perhaps you are only familiar with retarded children.

Epistemologically, knowledge means intellectual knowledge, that is, knowledge by means of language. In every day speech the words "know" and "knowledge" are used to identify many different things, such as developed skills and abilities (he knows how to drive, she knows how to type, he knows how to used the computer), things one has experienced (I know what cinnamon tastes like) or is acquainted with (I know where the library is) or even for things animals can do (Rex knows his way home). Intellectual knowledge, however, pertains only to knowledge acquired and held by means of language.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am
This is the same way science works. Understanding a phenomenon comes before naming a phenomenon.
I'd be interested to know how you came to a conclusion like that. Most of the "heavenly bodies" which astronomy and physics came later to "understand" were named long before that understanding. Most of the chemical elements were named before their nature was understood.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:35 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Here's my metaphor. The territory is reality. Knowledge is one's map of that territory which makes it possible to negotiate it.
Is there any requirement for one person's map to be comprehensible to another for it to be "knowledge"?
Of course not. If I know what abrin is and what it's nature is I will be careful not to ingest it. (My map in that case is accurate) Someone else's map may not even indicate the existence of abrin, much less its nature and encountering pretty rosary peas might be inclined to taste them--and die.

Minds exist one to an individual and every individual's knowledge or ignorance is unique. If you know something it is not necessary for anyone else to know it for it to be true.

There is a common mistaken belief that the purpose of language is communication. It is certainly the most important means of communication, but the essential purpose of language is knowledge. One must know something before they can communicate it.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
What dichotomy. Volition is an attribute of the human mind, and aspect of one's nature as a human being. There is no dichotomy.
There is more to a human being than a mind. You have organs and limbs and other things. Your reductionism is glaring.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
In discussions with grown-ups it is not usually required to explain every obvious thing.
In discussion with grown ups it's usually not polite to resort to strawmen. Choice is necessary, but not sufficient for humanity.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
Really!? Both of my sons spoke before they were two and my youngest in complete sentences shortly after his second birthday. Perhaps you are only familiar with retarded children.
Anecdotal.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
Epistemologically, knowledge means intellectual knowledge, that is, knowledge by means of language.
Then your conception of knowledge is incomplete. It fails to account for procedural knowledge.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
In every day speech the words "know" and "knowledge" are used to identify many different things, such as developed skills and abilities (he knows how to drive, she knows how to type, he knows how to used the computer)
You are contradicting yourself. Knowing how to drive a car doesn't require language. Knowing how to use a computer doesn't require language.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
Intellectual knowledge, however, pertains only to knowledge acquired and held by means of language.
Where does that leave science? Knowledge first-hand empirically acquired and formalized?!?
Can you convert "intellectual knowledge" into procedural knowledge? e.g can you apply your knowledge?
If you can't do anything with it then it's worth less than toilet paper.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
I'd be interested to know how you came to a conclusion like that. Most of the "heavenly bodies" which astronomy and physics came later to "understand" were named long before that understanding. Most of the chemical elements were named before their nature was understood.
Exactly! They were named before "understanding" but they were named after "identification and classification". Which is trivial at the human scale and with the instruments nature gave you - your eyes! You can go and observe the night sky yourself using a telescope. You can also see two bright planets in the sky. And you don't have to label them "Mars" and "Venus".

Obviously Mendeleev's challenge was a little more demanding because you can't see atoms or protons with your eyes.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
the essential purpose of language is knowledge. One must know something before they can communicate it.
No, it cannot be. One particular use of language may be the expression of knowledge (teaching) , another particular use of language may be the acquisition of knowledge (learning), but this doesn't account for the way empirical knowledge is attained first-hand - through observation.
Einstein didn't read about relativity.
Mendeleev didn't read about the periodic table.
Carnot didn't read about thermodynamics.

In all three cases the knowledge was not attained through language. It was only communicated in language.

To claim that the essential purpose of language is knowledge is to claim that without language knowledge is impossible.
You are preaching Logocentrism. But there's far more to reality than what we say about it.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by RCSaunders » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:43 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
What dichotomy. Volition is an attribute of the human mind, and aspect of one's nature as a human being. There is no dichotomy.
There is more to a human being than a mind.
Of course. Perhaps I can clarify. Volition is an attribute of the human mind, one aspect of human nature as a human being. That does not mean that is all there is to a human being, though the mind is the most important aspect of human nature and that which distinguishes human beings from all other organisms.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
Epistemologically, knowledge means intellectual knowledge, that is, knowledge by means of language.
Then your conception of knowledge is incomplete. It fails to account for procedural knowledge.
Procedural knowledge is knowledge requiring language just as all knowledge is. It is impossible to describe a procedure without language.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
In every day speech the words "know" and "knowledge" are used to identify many different things, such as developed skills and abilities (he knows how to drive, she knows how to type, he knows how to used the computer)
Knowing how to drive a car doesn't require language. Knowing how to use a computer doesn't require language.
That is exactly my point. Those things are called knowledge in every day language, but that is not what the word knowledge means in epistemology. Epistemology only deals with knowledge by means of language, which is only possible to human minds.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
Intellectual knowledge, however, pertains only to knowledge acquired and held by means of language.
Where does that leave science? Knowledge first-hand empirically acquired and formalized?!?
Language is the means by which empirical observation is recorded and analyzed. Without language there would be no science.
Can you convert "intellectual knowledge" into procedural knowledge? e.g can you apply your knowledge?
As already mentioned, all procedures are described and recorded by means of language. Procedural knowledge is intellectual knowledge.
If you can't do anything with it then it's worth less than toilet paper.
Without knowledge, which is only possible by means of language, there is nothing a human can do as a human being, that is, what one does by choosing to do it. From dressing themselves in the morning to choosing what to have for breakfast, from productive work to recreation, everything a human being does requires knowledge which makes it possible for him to do it.

It is the fact that everything a human being does must be consciously chosen (except for the purely biological, reflex, and autonomic behavior), that knowledge is necessary. A choice requires a judgement based on reason based on what one knows, a judgement that answers the questions, what is there to choose, what will be the consequences of a choice, which choice will result in what I want? One has only one source for one's reason, their knowledge. Knowledge is all there is to think (reason) with and knowledge is all there is to think about. The limit of one's knowledge is the limit of their choices, and since a human being must live by choice, it is the limit of a human life.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:44 pm
I'd be interested to know how you came to a conclusion like that. Most of the "heavenly bodies" which astronomy and physics came later to "understand" were named long before that understanding. Most of the chemical elements were named before their nature was understood.
Exactly! They were named before "understanding" but they were named after "identification and classification". Which is trivial at the human scale and with the instruments nature have you - your eyes! You can go and observe the night sky yourself using a telescope. You can also see two bright planets in the sky. And you don't have to label them "Mars" and "Venus".
I was referring to your statement that, "Understanding a phenomenon comes before naming a phenomenon." Have you changed, "understanding," to, "identification and classification?" Actually naming an existent is identification.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
There is a common mistaken belief that the purpose of language is communication. It is certainly the most important means of communication, but the essential purpose of language is knowledge. One must know something before they can communicate it.
To claim that the essential purpose of language is knowledge is to claim that without language knowledge is impossible.
That's right. Without language, intellectual knowledge is impossible, and without intellectual knowledge, thinking is impossible, and without thinking (judging) choice is impossible.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:07 pm
And yet - humans knew how to invent language.
The use of some form of language is probably part of human nature. Baby's, especially twins, seem to communicate using some kind of, "language," before learning the language of adults. It seems that humans who have never learned a language nevertheless use various sounds to identify things and express reactions that have meaning to the users. I am not saying this is so, but there is evidence for it. It is certainly true that all actual languages were invented by human beings but if knowledge was required for that invention or if it occurred as an aspect of the requirement for knowledge by human nature cannot be known.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:13 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:43 pm
Epistemology only deals with knowledge by means of language, which is only possible to human minds.
Then epistemology has a very narrow focus, probably too narrow to matter in practice. Many non-human animals have languages and display ability to learn and make intelligent choices. Dolphins for example.
Some animals can speak human languages. Have you heard of Koko the talking gorilla?
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:43 pm
As already mentioned, all procedures are described and recorded by means of language. Procedural knowledge is intellectual knowledge.
ALL procedures? Ok show us. Describe to me the procedure by which you distinguish whether two things are the same as each other, or different to each other.

Which is the very question you refuse to answer. Is C = С ?
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:43 pm
Without knowledge, which is only possible by means of language
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Language doe not determine anything
You are going to have to reconcile these two claims above. Apparently language doesn't determine anything, BUT it's necessary for knowledge.

But you are still going to have a hard time accounting for the procedural knowledge of "hunting", "gathering" and "making fire" which our cavemen ancestors had long before they had any language to describe it in.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:43 pm
Actually naming an existent is identification.
No it's not. Identification happens in the mind's eye. It's independent of language.

Look around you - are you trying to tell me that you can't see ANYTHING for which you have no vocabulary? I wouldn't believe you.

There are at least 3 objects around me right now for which I have no labels. I could try to label them, but I don't need to. Yet I experience them, I recognise them. I individuate them from the surroundings. I have no desire or intention to label them - I am happy to simply experience them.

This process of identification is what phenomenologists call bracketing.

It happens before and without language.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:47 pm
That's right. Without language, intellectual knowledge is impossible, and without intellectual knowledge, thinking is impossible, and without thinking (judging) choice is impossible.
So language determines everything? Well shit :)

When did you choose your language? When did you free yourself from the shackles of Logocentrism?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:48 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:21 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:33 pm
I think there are at least 50 logical laws that most people would agree on and they are not going to go away just because you say "not objective" or something.
But the 'laws' of logic do go away if you just ignore them, or tweak the context. Very much unlike gravity.

What you seem to call 'laws' a mathematician tend to call theorems. And what mathematicians always keep on the back of their mind is that different axioms produce different theorems.
Yeah, well, except I just said "laws", not theorems.

And laws don't go away, whatever with mathematician may think.

You can ignore the laws of logic. Mankind thrived for hundreds of millennia without paying attention to them. But people didn't pay attention to the laws of gravity either. And your brain definitely pays attention to logic. In fact, your brain is the material support of the laws of logic. You think you can ignore your brain?! Yeah, well, you think you do.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:51 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:11 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:33 pm
Most people, at least those not terminally biased by a training in mathematical logic, would agree on the validity of the Modus Ponens, on the validity of Aristotle's syllogisms, on the validity of de Morgan's laws, etc. I think there are at least 50 logical laws that most people would agree on and they are not going to go away just because you say "not objective" or something. It is an objective fact that nearly all logicians throughout the 2,500 years of Aristotelian logic have accepted these inferences as logical laws.
EB
Yes. I totally agree with that. It's what I was referring to by saying that logic, along with language and mathematics, can be studied rationally to determine how well they accomplish their purpose. My only point is that the study of the nature of those things cannot be an objective science in the sense of studying that which is metaphysical. It can certainly be objective.

Logic only matters if, as an epistemological method, it achieves its purpose of identifying and understanding aspects of reality.
Yep, I can sign up to that.

So, why no science of logic yet?
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:58 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:03 am
If we accept that in general, a deductive system is a collection of axioms and inference rules then the distinction drawn by Speakpigeon between Mathmatics and Logic is simply a distinction between the set of axioms and inference rules chosen.
No. You didn't read my introduction.
So, let me repeat my post:
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.
"Logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings". See? Nothing like a collection of axioms and inference rules.
And I would prefer not to have to repeat myself.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:12 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:48 pm
Yeah, well, except I just said "laws", not theorems.

And laws don't go away, whatever with mathematician may think.

You can ignore the laws of logic. Mankind thrived for hundreds of millennia without paying attention to them. But people didn't pay attention to the laws of gravity either. And your brain definitely pays attention to logic. In fact, your brain is the material support of the laws of logic. You think you can ignore your brain?! Yeah, well, you think you do.
EB
Too bad that your entire premise is bogus. There is no difference between logic and mathematics.

They are different frameworks for expressing the same thing. Computation.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:18 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:58 pm
"Logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings". See? Nothing like a collection of axioms and inference rules.
And I would prefer not to have to repeat myself.
EB
You are necessarily implying that we should study logic from a behaviourist perspective, but in order to describe "logic as an objective performance" we are inevitably going to develop formal languages to talk ABOUT logic performances e.g we are going to develop metalogic.

And, inevitably, you are going to reduce metalogic to meta-axioms, meta-entailment rules and meta-theorems. Because ALL formal systems exist under the Chomsky hierarchy. Which is precisely why computer science has a whole bunch of paradigms for classifying formal languages based on the various ways people USE logic.

You are just going up and down the layers of abstraction...Stuck in the quicksand.

And because you are necessarily suggesting that we ought to talk about logic USING logic then perhaps you need to start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity

A language is homoiconic if a program written in it can be manipulated as data using the language, and thus the program's internal representation can be inferred just by reading the program itself.

If that's all too technical for you - homoiconicity is basically the use-mention distinction applied to logic itself.

Any "science of logic" would need to be using logic to mention logic. It's called a circular dependency.

TL;DR Computer science is the science of "logic as objective performance", because the performance of logic is called computation. You just haven't convinced yourself of that fact yet.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:18 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:58 pm
"Logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings". See? Nothing like a collection of axioms and inference rules.
And I would prefer not to have to repeat myself.
EB
You are necessarily implying that we should study logic from a behaviourist perspective, but in order to describe "logic as an objective performance" we are inevitably going to develop formal languages to talk ABOUT logic performances e.g we are going to develop metalogic.

And, inevitably, you are going to reduce metalogic to meta-axioms, meta-entailment rules and meta-theorems. Because ALL formal systems exist under the Chomsky hierarchy. Which is precisely why computer science has a whole bunch of paradigms for classifying formal languages based on the various ways people USE logic.

You are just going up and down the layers of abstraction...Stuck in the quicksand.

And because you are necessarily suggesting that we ought to talk about logic USING logic then perhaps you need to start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity

A language is homoiconic if a program written in it can be manipulated as data using the language, and thus the program's internal representation can be inferred just by reading the program itself.

If that's all too technical for you - homoiconicity is basically the use-mention distinction applied to logic itself.

Any "science of logic" would need to be using logic to mention logic. It's called a circular dependency.

TL;DR Computer science is the science of "logic as objective performance", because the performance of logic is called computation. You just haven't convinced yourself of that fact yet.
LOL. According to what you say here, the little bit that we have done already, essentially Aristotle, is sort of arbitrary. So, x is F, All y that are F are G, therefore x is G just wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?! Yeah, sure.

Me, I don't see it that way. I take logic... Oops, no, let's stop here, no need to repeat myself, yet again. I think you're just one of those dudes who have so much expertise there isn't room for anything intelligent to take in anymore. They can't even be bothered to understand what they read. That is, if they read at all. Have a good day and please ignore my posts in the future.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:43 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
essentially Aristotle, is sort of arbitrary
Precisely! Have you heard of this theorem?

In mathematical logic, Diaconescu's theorem, or the Goodman–Myhill theorem, states that the full axiom of choice is sufficient to derive the law of the excluded middle, or restricted forms of it, in constructive set theory.

Classical logic is a product of its arbitrarily chosen axioms.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
So, x is F, All y that are F are G, therefore x is G just wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?! Yeah, sure.
What you are describing is just set theory and inheritance.

It doesn't stand to scrutiny. We already know that set theory is inconsistent.
You may or may not have noticed, but I am not really a fan of homogenous logic systems.
I much prefer many-sorted logics which are broadly - the same kind of logic as constructive mathematics. And guess what? It's also inconsistent.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
Me, I don't see it that way. I take logic...
For granted? Yeah... affirming the consequent.

If you so desperately want a science of logic, perhaps you first need to understand the limits of logic. And if you ever come to terms with the fact that logic is made up, then... this video may be just for you.

The Five Stages of Accepting Constructive Mathematics.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:15 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
essentially Aristotle, is sort of arbitrary
Precisely! Have you heard of this theorem?

In mathematical logic, Diaconescu's theorem, or the Goodman–Myhill theorem, states that the full axiom of choice is sufficient to derive the law of the excluded middle, or restricted forms of it, in constructive set theory.

Classical logic is a product of its arbitrarily chosen axioms.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
So, x is F, All y that are F are G, therefore x is G just wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?! Yeah, sure.
What you are describing is just set theory and inheritance.

It doesn't stand to scrutiny. We already know that set theory is inconsistent.
You may or may not have noticed, but I am not really a fan of homogenous logic systems.
I much prefer many-sorted logics which are broadly - the same kind of logic as constructive mathematics. And guess what? It's also inconsistent.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:11 pm
Me, I don't see it that way. I take logic...
For granted? Yeah... affirming the consequent.

If you so desperately want a science of logic, perhaps you first need to understand its limits. And if you ever come to terms with the fact that logic is made up, then... this video may be just for you.

The Five Stages of Accepting Constructive Mathematics.
Sorry, Sir, I don't follow links.
This is a forum. If you can't articulate your views by yourself please just ignore my posts.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why still no science of logic?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:15 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:15 pm
Sorry, Sir, I don't follow links.
This is a forum. If you can't articulate your views by yourself please just ignore my posts.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Can you articulate your views without appealing to Aristotle or any of the "laws" of logic?
Can you articulate anything without using other people's ideas?

Can you reinvent all of human knowledge all by yourself in a single forum post?
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest