- #1
Sikz
- 245
- 0
Would you classify logic as law or description? Are things actually GOVERNED by logic, or is logic simply a tool we use to understand these things?
Originally posted by Sikz
Would you classify logic as law or description? Are things actually GOVERNED by logic, or is logic simply a tool we use to understand these things?
Are things actually GOVERNED by logic, or is logic simply a tool we use to understand these things?
Originally posted by Tom
For instance,
"If I eat, then I will not be hungry. I am not hungry. Therefore, I will not eat."
From observations such as these, we learn to abstract the following:
P-->Q
~Q
-----
[4]~P
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Actually, the Q predicate here is "I am not/will not be hungry." So what you have presented semantically is
P-->Q
Q
Would you classify logic as law or description? Are things actually GOVERNED by logic, or is logic simply a tool we use to understand these things?
Originally posted by Sikz
Does math describe the world, or is the world GOVERNED by math?
Originally posted by Sikz
I'm not sure everyone understood this. Perhaps I can make the most sense through an analogy...
Does math describe the world, or is the world GOVERNED by math? If I drop an apple from a certain distance above the earth, does it take so-and-so long to fall BECAUSE math dictates that, or does the math dictate that BECAUSE that's how long it will take to fall?
That is my question, except with logic rather than math. If all possibilities but one have been logicly shown to be impossible, is the remaining possibility true BECAUSE of logic, or does logic dictate it to be true BECAUSE it is?
Originally posted by Njorl
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad!" - Mr. Spock
Originally posted by Njorl
Yes. The ship was taken over by androids, and they discovered that displays of faulty logic hampered the android's thinking processes. They defeated the android leader when Kirk told him, "Everything I say is a lie."
Njorl
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Tom and Hypnagogue,
Just from the little I've read here I think I like logic.
-Zooby
Would you classify logic as...
Would you classify logic as law or description? Are things actually GOVERNED by logic, or is logic simply a tool we use to understand these things?
Not sure why Tom calls logic as laws of reasoning, giving it some gist of absoluteness. I thought logic is more like a set of rules that help us to evaluate validity of reasoning.
I mean, these rules aren't necessarily unique and absolute. Their main strength is that they are internally consistent, and thus usable to evaluate internal consistency of reasoning statements. That internal consistency doesn't give the rules any substance nor universal uniqueness.
I also don't understand why its so often said that Logic is extracted from everyday experience and is thus governed by it. I find the only correlation between logic and everyday experience in that both are "consistent". That doesn't make either more important than other. In fact it seems that "consistency" is actually the only true property of any logical system. To say that everyday experience is source for our Logic system is to say very little, much like saying that our existence is source of logic. Our logical ruleset is very strongly reduced set to keep it manageable and reasonably simple, ie. efficient. Whether its the only one or even the best one isn't very clear. Thus Logic system isn't something unique or absolute, but more like a "theory". Being manmade, its no worse nor better than any successful theory, subject to changes.
Imo, logic is "tool", to understand when we are talking gibberish, no more. Logic can't ever produce anything, only help to validate our constructs. It can't even tell if something is true, only that its valid as statement. To attribute to logic some world governing powers seems excessive.
Originally posted by wimms
Not sure why Tom calls logic as laws of reasoning, giving it some gist of absoluteness. I thought logic is more like a set of rules that help us to evaluate validity of reasoning.
Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Logic is more of a method. It has no real laws in the same way you have scientific laws. The general guidlines of logic schemes, or paradigms, could technically be construed as laws that ought to guide, and correct the mind,
but logic is conditional in the sense that its effectiveness is totally related to the amount of knowledge one has.
Right. Scientific laws are descriptive, and cannot be broken. The laws (or rules or method, if you prefer) of logic is prescriptive and can be broken.
Right again. Not only does one need a knowledge of the methods of logic per se, but one also needs knowledge of the subject about which one is reasoning. Logic itself is quite sterile, consisting of relationships between logical variables through unary and binary operators. Even if someone has trained their mind to make only valid inferences, it doesn't matter at all if that person starts out with one or more false premises.
Of course, english is such a nice language, each word having 15 meanings you can pick from, so maybe what you meant by "laws" was really same thing. I'm sorry then.Originally posted by Tom
What is the difference between what I call a "law" and what you call a "rule"?
By braking, you really mean "ignoring" here I think. Both can be ignored. In one case you'd get killed, in other, well, just flamed.Scientific laws are descriptive, and cannot be broken. The laws (or rules or method, if you prefer) of logic is prescriptive and can be broken.
Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
To me a rule doesn't necessarily have to have an actual bases. I can for example make it the rule to never walk into the house without my shoes. A law on the other hand seems to imply a rule that is not really of your own making, but rather that is a part of, or the result of something that defines a particular observation.
Another way to understand the power of a truly logical law of thought would be something like math: "2+2=4". This is not just a made up rule, but a fact that must be universal when it comes to adding quantities. In this sense, it is logical to accept the premise that "2+2=4".
To break something has more than one meaning. In once sense, you can say you have violated a rule, and in other since, you can drop a glass, and watch it break into pieces. These 2 cases are both examples of brackages of some kind.
Anything dealing with words is descriptive, hence knowledge in a certain since is a description of something that relates to a thought of some kind.
No, logic is not prescriptive in the sense you think it is. Logic has a valid authority that is not arbitrary as a ramdon thought thrown on a piece of paper might be.
I think people confuse a logical thought with an imperative in the sense that somehow you can not override a logical advise. But saying so, does not mean that there isn't such a thing as a wise action. Whether or not you choose to act wisely, has no bearing on whether or not there is such things as logical principles.
Science is the result of logic. Hence, if Science is unbreakable, then so is logic, for without logic, you would not have science.
All the laws that govern correct thinking, or wise thinking, must give way to meaningful fruite. Or as i have read in the New Testament somewhere, "A tree is known by the fruit it bears." Logic must have its consequences, in the same way foolishness must have its mark.
I am not sure i know what you mean by the last sentence. What gives validity to a train of thought?
At some point, true reasoning must rely on an unshakable foundation if there is to be power in the way one goes about and conquers a challenge. In a game of chess, all your reasonning must have some basis in reality, hence your validity stems from what is reality. If your whole system is based on a total absence of facts, then you can not make a valid inference, since you are only guessing, and not working from principles that have some kind of "integrity."
Originally posted by wimms
Of course, english is such a nice language, each word having 15 meanings you can pick from, so maybe what you meant by "laws" was really same thing. I'm sorry then.
The difference I saw is that "law" has gist of absoluteness, that doesn't tolerate competing options - it either is, universal, or it isn't, ala energy conservation law.
Set of logic rules doesn't carry such absolute uniqueness, there are no strict limits to number of rulesets that can be applicable with same degree of success (fuzzy logic vs boolean logic comes to mind).
Thats when I thought about property of "internally consistent". I suppose, that two sufficiently different logical systems might even look inconsistent to each other (when evaluating from other system), can be internally consistent by its own rules, and be both equally successful in dealing with real world, although perhaps very differently.
Our way of thinking and our logic rules are really rooted in cause-and-effect experience. Only recently we've had hints that this might not be absolute state of affairs. And seems that to deal with that our logical system becomes increasingly inefficient.
By braking, you really mean "ignoring" here I think. Both can be ignored. In one case you'd get killed, in other, well, just flamed.
Well, I get (and did) the meaning of both, but I don't see why you stress this.Originally posted by Tom
I think you also did not get my distinction between descriptive laws and prescriptive laws. Energy conservation is of the former type (descriptive), and logic is of the latter (prescriptive). The a posteriori laws of science and the a priori laws of logic are like apples and oranges.
Well, you can't really "violate" laws of logic, either.. By using logic, you are constrained by its rules. You can't violate logic while following its rules. You can only ignore logic.No, I don't mean "ignoring", I mean "violating". You can't violate the laws of physics, try as you might.
Yes, logic is considered a science because it uses systematic methods to study and analyze reasoning and arguments.
The main purpose of studying logic is to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to reason effectively. It also helps to identify and evaluate arguments, and make sound and logical decisions.
Anyone can learn logic, as it is a skill that can be developed and improved with practice. While there are experts in the field, the basic principles of logic can be understood by anyone.
Logic has practical applications in various fields, including mathematics, computer science, law, and business. It is also used in everyday life, such as in problem-solving and decision-making.
Common sense is based on personal experiences and intuition, while logic is based on reasoning and evidence. Logic is a more systematic and structured approach to thinking, whereas common sense may be influenced by biases and emotions.