# Thread: INTPs - why do they love fancy-shmancy snooty debates?

1. 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.

2. Originally Posted by tcda
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.
What do you mean by "formal logic"?

3. Formal logic

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.
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.

4. Originally Posted by tcda
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.
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?

5. Originally Posted by tcda
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.
The response
lolwat? How does formal logic break down if it is not by logical inconsistencies and wtf is "anti-formal logic"?

6. Originally Posted by Orangey
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?
I maintain one has nothing to do with the other, and tcda has yet to demonstrate otherwise.

7. I love it! This thread has now officially turned into an INTP analytical breakdown fest! Thanks guys

8. Originally Posted by kendoiwan
The response
"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?

9. Originally Posted by Orangey
What does its application to higher maths and physics have to do with its application to history and politics?
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.

10. Thank you, dear participants, for proving my point. G'night.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO