## User Tag List

1. Logic is the systematic study of the principles of correct reasoning and valid inference. One will use logic in many facets, such as in philosophy, science, linguistics and mathematics. The investigation that logic undertakes is of approximate knowledge in the natural world. Some philosophers may classify logic as a sub-division of epistemology for this very reason, while others think of logic as a scientific study of argumentation. But to consider the premises in a logical argument as necessarily true, they need to have some relation to "reality," as far as we know it to exist. So, other systems, like science and philosophy and so on, could give the facts for the premise to be considered true. If there's no facts or evidence to support the premise, then the argument is built on faulty grounds.

This is why I think logic is not truth in and of itself. But that isn't to say that logic is not a necessary process to find approximations of our reality. Also, I guess, depending on how one defines "truth," an emotion to X would be considered real, even if X is not real.

(Woo, I have 69 posts. **types seductively**)

EDIT: I forgot to put "principles" in this post. I don't want to muddle the definition.

2. Originally Posted by So It Goes
Logic is the systematic study of correct reasoning and valid inference. One will use logic in many facets, such as in philosophy, science, linguistics and mathematics. The investigation that logic undertakes is of approximate knowledge in the natural world. Some philosophers may classify logic as a sub-division of epistemology for this very reason, while others think of logic as a scientific study of argumentation. But to consider the premises in a logical argument as necessarily true, they need to have some relation to "reality," as far as we know it to exist. So, other systems, like science and philosophy and so on, could give the facts for the premise to be considered true. If there's no facts or evidence to support the premise, then the argument is built on faulty grounds.

This is why I think logic is not truth in and of itself. But that isn't to say that logic is not necessary to find approximations of our reality.
Logic is not an action. Logic cannot undertake anything, it is static. Logic itself is a definition and can be likened to a algorithm. Use or path of logic does not define logic, except in a round about way. Also logic has nothing to with truth or whats true. Those are defined by terms like "logical".

When someone asks me the logic of something I tell them the "exact" logic...then we work out how to "make" the logic true to what we want done(programming). Now when logic is out of our control...as in life...you cant manipulate logic, just the inputs/outputs as we have no way to change how the world actually works, we can just play with the logic and understand it as best we can.

3. Originally Posted by _Poki_
Logic is not an action. Logic cannot undertake anything, it is static. Logic itself is a definition and can be likened to a algorithm. Use or path of logic does not define logic, except in a round about way.
When I used the term, "systematic," I am speaking of the process of using the system of logic to find approximations of our reality. I am not saying that logic is an action. There's a difference between the definition of logic and how people use "logic" to achieve a certain result. Most definitions of symbolic logic use the word "systematic" as describing the reasoning according to those fixed principles within the system.

Also logic has nothing to with truth or whats true. Those are defined by terms like "logical".
Define "truth" and I may or may not agree.

"Logic" is, under many definitions, a system of principles, in which one applies correct inference and valid reasoning.

To arrive at some plausible reality, we need these traits. To be "logical" is to be in accordance with "logic."

When someone asks me the logic of something I tell them the "exact" logic...then we work out how to "make" the logic true to what we want done(programming). Now when logic is out of our control...as in life...you cant manipulate logic, just the inputs/outputs as we have no way to change how the world actually works, we can just play with the logic and understand it as best we can.
I agree. One shouldn't manipulate logic. That would be illogical.

4. Originally Posted by So It Goes
"Logic" is, under many definitions, a system of principles, in which one applies correct inference and valid reasoning.
This is where I disagree...the correstness or logic does not make it any more "logic" then logic that is not correct. More is being added to the term logic then is applicable...I am referring to the way its used in real life.

Other: whats the logic
Me: If A='l" then do xyz
Other: thats not right

if I wanted to "probe" it would go like this...
Me: whats not right
Other: the logic

which inferes that whether it is right or wrong its still logic.

5. Originally Posted by _Poki_
This is where I disagree...the correstness or logic does not make it any more "logic" then logic that is not correct.
This is why I said that Logic is not the truth in and of itself.

The premises that support the conclusion need to relate to actual evidence, context and facts to be considered sound.

To give an example:

All humans are mortal. (Premise)
Samuel L. Jackson is a human. (Premise)
Therefore, Samuel L. Jackson is mortal. (Conclusion)

There are of course assumptions in the premises, like Samuel L. Jackson being a human, humans being mortal, and so on, which are confirmed outside of the argument, through observation and experiment and measurement (of people dying and of Jackson having the characteristics to be a human), which support the validity of the premises.

Other: whats the logic
Me: If A='l" then do xyz
Other: thats not right

if I wanted to "probe" it would go like this...
Me: whats not right
Other: the logic

which inferes that whether it is right or wrong its still logic.
Yes.

If the premises are false, then the conclusion is in error. But:

I think I understand what you mean by arriving at the wrong conclusion from false premises that are logical.

To quickly borrow from Wiki, because I like this example:

"If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships."

6. Originally Posted by So It Goes
This is why I said that Logic is not the truth in and of itself.

The premises that support the conclusion need to relate to actual evidence, context and facts to be considered valid.

To give an example:

All humans are mortal. (Premise)
Samuel L. Jackson is a human. (Premise)
Therefore, Samuel L. Jackson is mortal. (Conclusion)

There are of course assumptions in the premises, like Samuel L. Jackson being a human, humans being mortal, and so on, which are confirmed outside of the argument, through observation and experiment and measurement (of people dying and of Jackson having the characteristics to be a human), which support the validity of the premises.

Yes.

If the premises are false, then the conclusion is in error.

I think I understand what you mean by arriving at the wrong conclusion from false premises that are logical.

To quickly borrow from Wiki, because I like this example:

"If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships."
But I would even clasify as
the ground is wet because its sunny as logic.

sounds illogical...what if you walked outside and you saw the wet ground and the sun and put 2 and 2 together? Its still logic, just not correct. The thought is I dont know why 2 and 2 fit together, but it does. If this strange combination happened enough we could just call it statistics.

7. Originally Posted by _Poki_
But I would even clasify as
the ground is wet because its sunny as logic.

sounds illogical...what if you walked outside and you saw the wet ground and the sun and put 2 and 2 together? Its still logic, just not correct. The thought is I dont know why 2 and 2 fit together, but it does. If this strange combination happened enough we could just call it statistics.
I agree. That's why I gave that example.

It's what's classified as "False premise, true conclusion" or "False premise."

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

8. Originally Posted by So It Goes
I agree. That's why I gave that example.

It's what's classified as "False premise, true conclusion" or "False premise."

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
Thanks, good read. Never knew what those were called.

"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.'"

:yim_rolling_on_the_

9. Hmm, my post doesn't to anyone except me, or am I missing something?

Ok, so, let's see, what doesn't make sense?

When I said truth = logic I didn't mean it LITERALLY
It's like saying the potter = pottery (assuming that logic would actually be the tool of truth)

But aren't you making the potter more important, when you say, that him = the job ? Does it sound like he performs his job flawlessly, and that's why he got an "="

Thus, doesn't the = , make logic look more important, even though it doesn't make much sense at all, unless you look at it from a flexible and ambiguous point of view.

The sunflower is a symbol of math in nature, the seeds are distributed in a mathematical pattern, so this is why I posted it.

Doesn't matter anyway.

10. Originally Posted by guesswho
Hmm, my post doesn't to anyone except me, or am I missing something?

Ok, so, let's see, what doesn't make sense?

When I said truth = logic I didn't mean it LITERALLY
It's like saying the potter = pottery (assuming that logic would actually be the tool of truth)

But aren't you making the potter more important, when you say, that him = the job ? Does it sound like he performs his job flawlessly, and that's why he got an "="

Thus, doesn't the = , make logic look more important, even though it doesn't make much sense at all, unless you look at it from a flexible and ambiguous point of view.

The sunflower is a symbol of math in nature, the seeds are distributed in a mathematical pattern, so this is why I posted it.

Doesn't matter anyway.
The = sign means "equal"

#### 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