The function of the concept

[Nikolai1]

And why is laying eggs considered a feature of a fish, but not having live young. Why can't a fish be a fish and have live young?

[Brian]

And why is laying eggs considered a feature of a fish, but not having live young. Why can't a fish be a fish and have live young?

I assume we are ignoring viviparous and ovoviviparous fish?

 

[Nikolai1]

The point is: people did think that dolphins were fish, whales too, but why was this a logical error?

[Karl]

The point is: people did think that dolphins were fish, whales too, but why was this a logical error?

 

It isn't an error of logic, but an omission caused by lack of experience.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

What did those ancient mariners lack? Let's take Herman Melville who knew everything there is to know about whales, but considered them fish?

[Karl]

What did those ancient mariners lack? Let's take Herman Melville who knew everything there is to know about whales, but considered them fish?

 

It was purely an example. I don't know the historical reality. They were finned creatures that lived in water. Maybe Mariners knew they weren't fish and extrapolated they were mermaids ?

[Nikolai1]

Ok then, what's the difference between a logical error and an omission of experience?

[Brian]

BTW, the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on "fish" is worth reading. Helps illustrate my point about the system being rather arbitrary and capricious...

 

[Karl]

Ok then, what's the difference between a logical error and an omission of experience?

 

A logical error is an invalid argument that has broken one or more logical rules.

 

An omission of experience is as Rumsfeld would say 'an unknown unknown'. In inductive reasoning we make generalisations based on what is known at a particular moment.

 

We don't know what we don't know and this is of key importance to understanding what logic is and what its limitations are. It's only what can be proven at any one point in time.

 

However, the onus is on the proposer of the argument to provide the proof.

 

Certain inductive leaps can be made, then later they might have to be changed as new information appears.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl

 

A logical error is an invalid argument that has broken one or more logical rules. 

Just to recap, we have the old mariner who called a dolphin a fish.  This, was, as you said, not a logical error but 'an omission caused by lack of experience'.

 

But from the old mariner's perspective it is the scientist who has broken logical rules.  The syllogism, as he views it, is:

 

Major premise: A fish is any finned being that swims in the sea.

Minor premise: A dolphin has fins and swims in the sea.

Conclusion: A dolphin is therefore a fish.

 

The scientist, as the mainer sees it, has taken a subordinate category and mistaken it for a superordinate category. He thinks being a mammal precludes it from being a fish.   It is equivalent to saying "the dolphin is not a living being, it is a mammal."  The scientist is a most naive thinker, according to the ancient mariner.

 

So the scientist accuses the mariner of an omission of experience.

The mariner accuses the scientist of logical error.

 

Which of these is right, according to logic?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Hi Karl

 

 

Just to recap, we have the old mariner who called a dolphin a fish.  This, was, as you said, not a logical error but 'an omission caused by lack of experience'.

 

But from the old mariner's perspective it is the scientist who has broken logical rules.  The syllogism, as he views it, is:

 

Major premise: A fish is any finned being that swims in the sea.

Minor premise: A dolphin has fins and swims in the sea.

Conclusion: A dolphin is therefore a fish.

 

The scientist, as the mainer sees it, has taken a subordinate category and mistaken it for a superordinate category. He thinks being a mammal precludes it from being a fish.   It is equivalent to saying "the dolphin is not a living being, it is a mammal."  The scientist is a most naive thinker, according to the ancient mariner.

 

So the scientist accuses the mariner of an omission of experience.

The mariner accuses the scientist of logical error.

 

Which of these is right, according to logic?

 

Philosopher as opposed to scientist.

 

The syllogism is valid, but being valid is completely different to something being true. The lack of experience of sea living mammals would be the reason why the syllogism remains valid but is untrue. It is the scientist that looks at the biology of things and feeds back to the philosopher who alters his definition and corrects the syllogism in light of that new information. It is now up to date, but new information might well appear in due course. The syllogism remains valid throughout.

 

All that a syllogism does is to integrate premises to reach a new conclusion. Is this true, is that true, then this new thing must also be true at that one particular moment with no new information forthcoming.

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

The syllogism is valid, but being valid is completely different to something being true. 

OK, so it is possible for the syllogism, the archetypal logical form, to be valid yet totally untrue. Someting can work logically, but not be true empirically.

 

So how do we critique the logical argument? How do we determine that the valid syllogism is, in fact, untrue?

[Karl]

OK, so it is possible for the syllogism, the archetypal logical form, to be valid yet totally untrue. Someting can work logically, but not be true empirically.

 

So how do we critique the logical argument? How do we determine that the valid syllogism is, in fact, untrue?

 

The truth is the facts as they are.

 

It's a negative proposition. Just as innocent until proven guilty. Someone must prove guilt beyond doubt. Even if all the facts appear to add up to a conclusion, unless the facts actually do add up, then the conclusion cannot be reached. This doesn't mean leaving all possibilities on the table, only those that are factual.

 

I found this brain achingly difficult to get my head around at the start. Same as negative rights.

 

So, if you posit that swans are potentially possible in day glow green or ultra violet then it must be proved so. We cannot imply that because all swans were once said to be white, that the appearance of a black swan now makes it true that swans of all colours must then exist- they might well do, but these aren't the facts we have.

[Nikolai1]

The truth is the facts as they are.

At the start of this thread I asked you as an example of a fact, 'a clear definition of a concept or thing? Something that passes your own test of a good definition?'

 

You said 'man is a rational animal.'

 

We then saw the scientist and the ancient mariner disputing each other's rationality.  It was by deploying their rationality that they saw each other's irrationality.  You too see everywhere that man is a lamentably 'mystical animal', and you too were once such an animal.

 

So can the the 'truth of the facts as they are' be determined without dispute?

[Karl]

At the start of this thread I asked you as an example of a fact, 'a clear definition of a concept or thing? Something that passes your own test of a good definition?'

 

You said 'man is a rational animal.'

 

We then saw the scientist and the ancient mariner disputing each other's rationality.  It was by deploying their rationality that they saw each other's irrationality.  You too see everywhere that man is a lamentably 'mystical animal', and you too were once such an animal.

 

So can the the 'truth of the facts as they are' be determined without dispute?

 

They didn't dispute the rationality, they simply discovered another fact. It doesn't alter the syllogism that fish have find and swim in water, the definition has simply been expanded and so have the premises. Now we have new additional learning.

 

Man has the capacity for high levels of critical reasoning but this seems to have gone out of fashion with Hegel and Kant. This has resulted in the modern term 'scientism'. 'Deniers and believers' has become a common place expression related to thesis as well as 'consensus' science. The same applies to economics. The entire world has tipped upside down when such a thing as negative interest rates are possible. Where inflation is now desirable and printing money is the 'right' thing to do.

 

There will always be dispute of facts, that is how knowledge is acquired, but they must be observed facts in the way science used to do things. The problems perhaps started when people believed that traditional physical science could be equally applied to human behaviour.

[Nikolai1]

They didn't dispute the rationality, they simply discovered another fact. It doesn't alter the syllogism that fish have find and swim in water, the definition has simply been expanded and so have the premises. Now we have new additional learning. 

What was the new fact that was discovered?

[Karl]

What was the new fact that was discovered?

 

That not all swimming, finned creatures were fish. (This is hypothetical by the way, I used it only as an example I can't say that this actually happened that way).

 

We can alter, or add definitions to include the new information.

[Nikolai1]

That not all swimming, finned creatures were fish. 

Well then there was no new fact was there? The dolphin was a finned, swimming creature, ergo it was a fish.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Well then there was no new fact was there? The dolphin was a finned, swimming creature, ergo it was a fish.

 

That's how it was viewed until it was discovered it breathed air. It was reclassified a mammal. Now it was considered no longer to be a fish.

[Nikolai1]

That's how it was viewed until it was discovered it breathed air. It was reclassified a mammal. Now it was considered no longer to be a fish.

Circa 360 BC Aristotle wrote in detail about dolphins having lungs as well as the fact that they make milk and have, as he called them, 'breasts'.  Still he called them 'fish' and in his classification, which had humans at the top, he placed whales and dolphins below reptiles and lizards.

 

When Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick in 1851 he was still referring to the whale as a large fish.

[Nikolai1]

There was no significant new fact that led to the reclassifiction of the dolphin.  So if it wasn't logical and wasn't emprical, what was it?

[Karl]

There was no significant new fact that led to the reclassifiction of the dolphin.  So if it wasn't logical and wasn't emprical, what was it?

 

I said it was an example. I don't know what happened. Possibly they decided it was acceptable to leave Dolphins as fish despite contrary evidence. It doesn't affect logic in any way until that fact becomes important enough to be required. It's not earth shattering if Dolphins remain categorised as fish. Maybe they were first categorised as sea creature or marine entities, and fish was a later category. Blimey I only gave it as an example I'm not omniscient. I could have said the world was flat, or the sun is drawn by Chariots or rolled by dung beetles. There are probably hundreds or thousands of new discoveries and reclaffifications happening every year. I picked that example because those are the kind of things that happen. I don't have the history behind them.

[Nikolai1]

It's not earth shattering if Dolphins remain categorised as fish. 

Well the scientist and the ancient mariner both believe they are being logical, in deed both take the logic of their position seriously.

 

You take logic very seriously.  Do you not wish to settle this, for your own peace of mind?

[Brian]

BTW, the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on "fish" is worth reading. Helps illustrate my point about the system being rather arbitrary and capricious...

 

Might be a good time to toss this back in again...

[Karl]

Well the scientist and the ancient mariner both believe they are being logical, in deed both take the logic of their position seriously.

 

You take logic very seriously.  Do you not wish to settle this, for your own peace of mind?

 

It is of no concern to me at all. It's exactly as I expect it to be. I think you believe that I believe that logic reveals some ultimate truth, but it doesn't. I've said that it only reveals what is false and not what is true at that point in time and space to the one using the logic. My interest is only in ensuring that what I believe is based on sound reasoning to the extent that I can prove it is.

 

Logic provides a clear route to knowing what is fallacy that's all. It does not provide ultimate truths. This is why we are at odds. I think you believe there is an ultimate truth and knowing, which is why you misconstrue the value of logic. If you tell me that fairies roam the bottom of my garden then I shall tel, you I am not aware of them, but I would not challenge your belief that this is true for you. It is only when you say I should believe that varies exist that I go about with the spyglass of logic and my direct perceptions.

 

Logic is a moment by moment tool of reasoning. If you tell me that the tree only exists because the bird has sat on the branch then I will see that cause and effect is in play. I know the tree was there long before the bird existed.