you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).
btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
you'll have to explain that in plain English to me (I'm not a maths student).
btw "logically consistent" is not the same as formal logic. Dialectical materialism is logically consistent, but it is anti-formal logic.
"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."
"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"
-Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.
Formal logic
Basically it has been admitted that formal logic is inaqequate when it comes to higher maths and advanced physics. But people still try to apply it to history and politics.Formal logic
Formal logic is a set of rules for making deductions that seem self evident. Syllogisms like the following occur in every day conversation.
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Mathematical logic formalizes such deductions with rules precise enough to program a computer to decide if an argument is valid.
This is facilitated by representing objects and relationships symbolically. For example we might use for the set of humans, for the set of mortal creatures and for Socrates. We use the symbolic expression `' to indicate that object is a member of set . Thus we represent `Socrates is a human' with . We use the `quantifier' to indicate that all objects satisfy some condition. For example all men are mortal can be written as . This reads that every that has the property of being human must also have the property of being mortal. Then we restate the syllogism as follows.
Logic assumes something cannot be both true and not true. It looks only at the truth value of a proposition. It involves simple relationships between these truth values. These can be represented by truth tables as shown in Table 3.1. The only logical operations required are the three in this figure. Others such as implication represented by `' can be constructed from these three. is the same as . implies requires that either both and are true or is false.
Determining the truth of a logical expression that contains no quantifiers (like ) is a straightforward application of simple rules. One can use a truth table to evaluate each subexpression starting with those at the root of the expression tree as shown in Table 3.2. If a logical expression contains quantifiers than we need to evaluate a logical relationship over a range of values to determine the truth of the expression. If the range is infinite then there is no general way to evaluate the expression. We can use induction3.2to prove that some statements hold for all integers but for that we need to go beyond logic to mathematics.
"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."
"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"
-Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.
What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics? Fallacies and the application of certain basic logics (e.g., enthymemes, syllogistic) to discussions that take place in natural language is practical reasoning. What is the problem with using practical reason?
Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness
http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526
"They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"
http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526
"They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"
I love it! This thread has now officially turned into an INTP analytical breakdown fest! Thanks guys
Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...
"anti-formal logic" is nothing. I just meant that dialectical materialism is opposed to formal logic.
Formal logic can break down if we can show if osmething can be both true and untrue at the same time. However dialectical logic does not break down if we show this, because "unity of opposites" is one of the three fundamental rules of dialectical materialism (the other two being "negation of the negation" and "quantity into quality").
So how, according to a formal logic x sometimes = -x, and sometimes not?
@ragashree - could it be any other way?
"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."
"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"
-Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.
How can you arbitrarily seperate the two? If I state that something "cannot both be true and untrue at the same time", this is an absolute statement. If it is proved wrong in one field, it is proved wrong as a logical rule in general.
I could make the argument for things that are both "true and untrue" in history, but it would be much harder to convince you, as you would say it's my "subjective opinion". However, with maths and physics, no such accusation can be made.
"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."
"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"
-Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.