Why still no science of logic?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Speakpigeon, Jun 19, 2019.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,743
    But who gets to decide what valid reasoning is? You?
    You insist repeatedly that it's not about formal logic, but then there's this "result" . . .?

    You're claiming that this proposed "Science of Logic" you can't find anywhere, will if researched, mean the formal logic will more or less fall out? Why not start at the other end, with a formal logic? There are plenty of choices.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,714
    We could accept the typical sort of truth-functional definition of deductive validity, where a valid argument connects a set of premises and a conclusion in such a way that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.

    And we could compare that idea of deductive validity with other sorts of reasoning (let's call them "cogent reasoning") that are often encountered in real-life thought, such as induction and abduction (inference to the best explanation). Neither of these preserve the necessary connection between the truth of our premises and the truth of the conclusion that we draw from those premises. But both of them are fundamental to the practice of science.

    I can see observing real life examples of reasoning and then trying to construct formal models of what's observed.

    We already have that for deductive reasoning, in formal mathematical logic which emerged in the early 20th century as a formalization of mathematical proof procedures. Now it's currently underway for our "cogent arguments" as well. Typically by extending deductive logic in a probabilistic direction, so as to argue that while "cogent arguments" might not guarantee the truth of conclusions (given the truth of premises), they might nevertheless increase the probability of those conclusions.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,795
    Since you asked...

    Your threads typically follow a certain structure. You imply (explicitly or implicitly) that experts in philosophy (typically) are dolts who have failed to examine or perhaps even notice important issue X, which you, Speakpigeon claim to be or to have been investigating. You ask your questions and post your polls, ostensibly seeking the opinions of the people on this forum on the topic, but apparently you do this only so that you can score ego points for yourself by countering and dismissing the responses you get, on the basis that they don't follow a pre-determined script that you have in mind for the conversation.

    You operate on the assumption that you are the expert who already has the solutions to the conundrums he poses. The object, it seems, is not really to discuss the issues raised, but rather to assert your superior knowledge of whatever topic it is that you're supposedly asking questions about. The impression I get is that the appearance that you give about wanting to explore a topic with the people here is really little more than a facade to cover an exercise involving the self-satisfaction of your own ego, carried out at the expense of others against whom you consider yourself to be scoring rhetorical points.

    Your modus operandi comes across as one of setting calculated traps for unwary punters to fall into, thus providing you an opportunity to pat yourself on the back and gloat at the incompetency of those who you assume are beneath you

    As for your own opinions on these lofty topics you raise... where are they? We never get to hear the many learned insights that you've come to in your extensive studies of the topics you bring us for discussion. Actually, as far as I can tell, we don't get to hear any learned insights from you. Your own opinions on the topics you introduce are typically kept as mysterious background to the discussion. When invited directly to share your thoughts on the topics you raise, you most often decline. You appear content to criticise the thoughts of others while never actually making a substantive contribution of your own. What that suggests to me is either that you don't really have the original ideas you want us to think you have, or else you're afraid to test your own ideas in a public forum like this one. Another possibility is that your primary focus of interest in the threads you start here lies not in the thread topic so much as in putting on a performance involving a clash of egos or a metaphorical penis-waving display.

    These are just my impressions and opinions. I could, of course, be completely off base. You might turn out to be a really lovely, genuine guy who has nothing but the purest intentions, once we get to know the real you. Anything is possible.
     
    DaveC426913 and exchemist like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    You get the same with River, but River can do it with less words.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  8. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Please, don't make stuff up.
    I never claimed to have investigated anything.
    No, I certainly don't have any "pre-determined script".
    I do expect people to post relevant comments, which is only proper.
    Most of the time, though, they don't and you are a case in point.
    When they do, I reply in detail, and this is very easy to verify.
    This is absurd.
    Most of my threads have been polls. Hardly the thing you'd do if you thought yourself the expert. Why do a poll if you think you're the expert?
    At least this is the impression you have. So... you come across as an insecure old man put off by the first appearance of a display of confidence.
    This could be easily solved. Try to post relevant comments and you'll get considerate replies.
    You're contradicting yourself.
    I can't possibly both be motivated to assert my superior knowledge while at the same time refraining from sharing my learned insights or making any substantive contribution of my own!
    Please, make up your mind. I can't address contradictory claims.
    There are other possibilities.
    One is that I post polls and questions because I want to understand what people think about the topics I'm raising.
    Unfortunately, most of the time, I only get irrelevant comments because most of the time you don't understand the question.
    Most of you don't in fact even try to understand my questions. You come to it with massive preconceptions and read into the question something which isn't there.
    This is just a waste of time. You're not here to debate anything. You're here to spend time going nowhere. This is the pub. You speak without thinking about what you say. You just say it, mindlessly.
    EB
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,428
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,489
    Because it feeds your ego to know how many people you flatter yourself to be smarter than.
    Duh.

    Yep. You find out how many people disagree with your preset idea, then you invariably label every post you don't like as 'irrelevant'. This happens in every one of your threads.

    (Note, if everything other than your own preconceptions is irrelevant then it must follow that you will end up learning nothing. The point of a conversation is to listen to viewpoints you had not considered.)

    You are not engaging; you are verbally masturbating.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    Yazata likes this.
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,428
    I was going to start a poll on: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,795
    Speakpigeon:

    Confidence is one thing. Arrogance is another. Interesting that you assume I'm old. What's old, to you? Are you a teenager or something?

    By "assert your superior knowledge" I really meant "assert that you have superior knowledge". Without the "substantive contribution", it remains mere assertion.

    Sometimes your topics are good for a bit of diversion. This personal nonsense is a waste of time, I agree. Shall we stop, or do you want to go another round?
     
  13. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I was talking of doing science. What mathematicians did was mathematics, not science.
    And that still isn't any investigation, scientific or not, of deductive logic.
    EB
     
  14. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I'll be happy to have a conversation.
    Whenever you have something to say.
    EB
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,896
    I would also add that he generally claims "you are all clueless fools; I guess we are done here. I won't talk to you again" or something to that effect several times in a given thread. (Edited to add - including the post right above this one!) He then, of course, goes right back to posting, so I must assume that any such posts are deceptions made purely for theatric effect.

    In many ways, his threads are more theater than anything like intelligent discussion - theater following a script that only he knows.
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,428
    Do you have me on "ignore"?
     
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,809
    Isn't logic considered to be the ''foundation'' of science? How could there ever be a science of logic, if logic itself is the first tier to reason?
     
    Beer w/Straw, billvon and river like this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,896
    Yep. Although I would amend that to "logic is a critical tool used to enable the scientific method." (You could conceivably do scientific work without logic, although any such work would be crippled by not having that too.)

    So it would be hard to have a science of logic, as you mention. It would be like asking why there is no math of numerals.
     
    wegs likes this.
  19. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    No. But you never say anything I feel like replying to. Fair enough?
    On the plus side, you don't get the "abuse" other posters pretend they are subjected to even though they keep coming back for more.
    EB
     
  20. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Same mistake as Yazata.
    Yes, logic is fundamental. It is fundamental to all reasoning and indeed to all the propositional beliefs we may come to have, be they scientific or not, such as when we may come to believe that Obama is a liar on the ground that all politicians are liars (I would say myself all humans are liars, but I derail).
    I asked why no science of logic, suggesting it would be good to have one. However, I am not therefore asking science to justify the logicality of logic, which seems to be the implication of your comment. If that, I agree that would be hopelessly circular.
    Instead, I'm asking for logic to be considered an empirical fact. Deductive logic is a capability of our brain and an objective performance of all human beings. Indeed, I would add cows and midgets and everything in between to that. Essentially, all species with at least one neuron. Moreover, I m pretty certain that the logical capability of a cow is essentially the same as our. We only have a bigger brain and probably a few extra functionalities to it, such as an articulated language. I would even say that any alien species would have essentially the same logic, although possibly a bigger brain. Logic, in other words, is a natural phenomenon, and thus, something science could investigate, and it is clear that understanding human logic would very likely have tremendous benefits for mankind. It may well be the only way to save us from self-destruction.
    If science investigated logic, like it already does human reasoning, something to which you don't seem to have any objection, which is a kind of self-contradiction, it might be able to produce a formal model that would be correct of human logic (unlike the toy-like ones mathematicians are playing with). Such a model, implemented on a computer, could be used to replicate human intelligence. Except, computers don't have the same physical limitation as our brain. We can't grow a bigger brain but we are constantly designing and producing bigger and faster computers. We don't know when they will beat the human brain in terms of computational power, but that should not be necessary. Most of what our brain does is tied down to the necessary task of keeping us alive. Computers don't have to spend their time keeping themselves alive and can concentrate instead on the question submitted to them (which explains why a computer can beat our best chess champions to begin with). So, I think we now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for? Why is it not investigating logic? Surely, it's more important that Black Holes or the Big Bang!
    EB
     
  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,428
    If you've already thought something through, well it remains to be seen.
     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,809
    I see your point, now. Well, we have scientific models to teach us how to come to a better understanding of ourselves and the universe, but logic takes into consideration - individual experiences, intuition, and IQ. How could one model suffice?
     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,743
    I consider that a misguided question.
    I could ask why you believe, what evidence do you have, that science isn't investigating logic?
    And also, why are you so sure you know this logic science should be investigating, is deductive human logic? And how should science investigate it?

    You imply there's a problem, but I don't believe anyone else has understood what it is, and you don't seem to have anything.
    I don't think there is any problem, science does investigate logic, it has to, if you think about it.
     

Share This Page