Wiki lists logic as a branch of philosophy

[EnumaElish]

With all due respect, logic is listed as a branch of philosophy, which is what I assumed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy

If it's in wiki, it must be true

 

[Gokul43201]

I too think it is perfectly fine, in general, for questions in formal logic to belong in Philosophy.

However, recalling the evolution of the forums, while there was once a time when the Philosophy forum belonged under the main forums, with Logic listed as a topic of discussion under it, that has now changed. With the successive retirements of all the Philosophy Mentors, and a rapidly diminishing signal-to-noise in the Philo forum, it was decided to move Philosophy to the Lounge. Logic is now considered a pertinent topic of discussion under the Set Theory sub-forum.

We do now, however, have a Philosophy Mentor in MiH, but I think it was decided to leave things the way they were, at least for the time being.

My own opinion is that Logic (or any other topic that might belong in more than one forum) ought to be discussed in the forum where it is likely to be better Mentored. Whether that is in Math or in Philosophy should depend on the preferences and availability of the Mentors involved.

 

[Evo]

There are guidelines for starting a thread in Philosophy. If it doesn't meet the guidelines, it can't go there.

Philosophy posting guidelines.

In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments in the philosophy forums adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the problem, the backdrop against which it resides, and the justification of one's perspective. This might include

* explicitly defining key terms;
* justifying why this is a valid issue or problem in the first place;
* explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
* etc.

In particular, please make a concerted effort to adequately define key terms whose meaning might otherwise be ambiguous and to provide proper justification for any claims that might be contentious. Doing so will go a long way towards stimulating productive discussion, whereas failure to do so will inevitably lead to lots of confusion, wasted words, and effort, and ultimately to moderator intervention as outlined above.

If you are referring to this post, you can see why it does not belong in Philosophy.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754513&postcount=1

How to prove a set of propositional connectives is NOT adequate?

I know how to prove if a set is adequate (all the main conncectives can be made from the set), but how would you prove that it is impossible to make all the connectives using this set?
For instance how would you prove if a set of connectives {and, or} is NOT adequate?

This is a question I thought of for preperation for a exam.

Any answer is appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Gokul43201]

There are guidelines for starting a thread in Philosophy. If it doesn't meet the guidelines, it can't go there.

Philosophy posting guidelines.

If you are referring to this post, you can see why it does not belong in Philosophy.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754513&postcount=1

I don't. But in any case, does this mean that all questions in formal logic are not meant for the Philosophy forum? Could you clarify whether they instead universally belong in some other forum or will that determination have to be made on a case-by-case basis?

I thought this thread belonged in Set Theory for logistical reasons, not for reasons of non-compliance, and I would have recommended moving rather than locking. But I think you are saying that is not the case.

 

[Evo]

I don't.

I thought it belonged in Set Theory for logistical reasons, not for reasons of non-compliance.

I agree it doesn't fit for both reasons.

If they want to start a philosophical discussion, then they have to set it up as a philosophical discussion. We've had to move too many threads lately, so we have started deleting threads and advising the member to repost in the appropriate forum, along with an official warning. I decided not to issue a warning or delete and just ask the member to repost.

If they wish to repost as a philosophical discussion, they can repost according to the guidelines.

 

[Moonbear]

When I took a course in logic in college, it was indeed offered by the philosophy department. I thought the main point of the philosophy forum guidelines was to nudge posters there into being more logical in their arguments, and if someone wanted to post a discussion of logic, or use formal logic in an argument, that wouldn't be against any of those philosophy forum rules. Indeed, it would require use of all of them.

Shutting out actual discussions that encourage use of logic or from students seeking to understand the logic for a philosophy course would seem to completely go against the point of trying to clean out all the riff raff from that forum that does not meet any logical guidelines (statements of assumptions and premises is a construct of logic).

 

[EnumaElish]

At the same time, the "Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics" forum includes "Relations of sets, logical operations, analysis, interpretation of data"

 

[ViewsofMars]

Regarding topic “Mind” that was moved from the Biology Forum to the Philosophy Forum at Moonbear's request. I would like to have someone else review it other than the person who moved it there. And perhaps another party can too. Is that ok?

Also I did end on this note:

Like I said to cfddjk, "Scientifically speaking, the mind can't exist without a brain so it isn't a philosophical issue as far as I am concerned." That statement in itself is considered to be a part of "CRITICAL-RESPONSE SKILLS" from Chapter 12: HABITS OF MIND which is by American Association for the Advancement of Science. Look at the bottom of the page of the website below. Do you see any philosophy mentioned therein that document, Moonbear? I sure don't. Basically you appear to me that you are now saying that science is philosophy. If that is the case then I wholeheartedly disagree with you. http://www.project2061.org/publicati...ine/chap12.htm

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408478

Thank you in advance for your help. Reporting an incident like this is new to me so I thought I would place it here. I hope that is alright.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I was in a rush last night. The link I gave didn't work. Here is
Chapter 12: HABITS OF MIND
VALUES AND ATTITUDES
COMPUTATION AND ESTIMATION
MANIPULATION AND OBSERVATION
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
CRITICAL-RESPONSE SKILLS
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap12.htm

Also, I did post from the topic “Mind”:
1. The Johns Hopkins University - The Zanvyl Krieger
Mind/Brain Institute - Systems, Cognitive, and
Computational Neuroscience

Systems, Cognitive, and Computational Neuroscience. Here is a snippet from it though I would encourage reading the entire page and exploring the website.

Systems/cognitive neuroscience is the study of how information processing in this vast neural network gives rise to perception, memory, abstract thought, complex behavior, and consciousness itself. This is the mind/body problem, debated by philosophers for millennia, now accessible to empirical inquiry, and one of the great remaining scientific frontiers. Johns Hopkins has an unusual concentration of systems/cognitive laboratories, with a focus on quantitative, network-level understanding of cognitive information processing. Experimental tools include neurophysiology, brain imaging, and psychophysics. Analytical approaches involve systems identification, dimensionality reduction, information theory, and network modeling. One major area of interest is how visual and tactile information processing leads to perception and understanding of two- and three-dimensional objects. Another focus is on neural processing and recognition of speech and other complex sounds. Other laboratories study neural mechanisms of attention, memory formation, motor learning, decision-making and executive control of behavior.

http://krieger.jhu.edu/mbi/research/

I should mention that I am not a big fan of wikipedia. Philosophers aren't scientists.

 

[Evo]

It could fit in either, depending on whether the Op wanted an answer from a medical standpoint, or a philosophical one. The OP seems to be asking from a philosophical standpoint. I moved it last night due to the OP's statement.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Hi Evo. I appreciate your feedback. I reviewed the dialogue inclusive of the date/time that took place from the link I earlier provided regarding the topic “Mind” that was originally in the forum Biology then moved by you to the Philosophy Forum. I'd like to address several issues that I am concerned about. The OP began with this remark post #1.

Hello,

Though I am a CFD Engineer, I am interested in knowing about "MIND". The question might seem silly to some of you, But, I feel it is philosophical question.

Can mind exist without physical brain?. That is when some one is dead / Suffering from brain dead?

My first two postings on the "Mind" topic were presented while that topic appeared in the forum Biology. My first post, which followed behind Moonbear's remark, contained the following comment to the OP addressing his original quote as noted above. This is what I wrote to the OP, "Scientifically speaking, the mind can't exist without a brain so it isn't a philosophical issue as far as I am concerned."

This is what I thought to myself prior to my comment to the OP. I was surprised a CFD Engineer would even ask those questions and present them to the public, considering he would hopefully be scientifically educated, knowing full well that placing it in a *science* forum begs for immediate attention. The questions the OP asked are of value since it allowed me the opportunity to bring forth insightful scientific information. Also, the questions asked are often asked by attendees in science seminars, lectures, and classrooms. Best to make a simple statement as I said above to the OP then move forward with science related research. My only wish was to continue the dialogue in a healthy robust manner in the Biology or Medical Forum. It appears now that won't be happening with the OP's topic without editing or deleting posts. Is it possible for a person to start a "Mind/Brain" topic in the Medical Forum?

Thanks. Have a great day.