The 10 Commandments of Logic

[Chang]

 

 

Worthy of consideration.

[Karl]

Thou should try and get to the truth not just attempt to win the argument.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

That is why I periodically remind everyone that what I say is my opinion (and/or understanding).

 

Except for the existence of my chair I don't have many truths.

[leth]

Those are not really related to logic but to argumentation.

[Karl]

Those are not really related to logic but to argumentation.

 

They are the logical fallacies. The bit that says 'logical' might spell out to that which they are related.

 

This is formal aristotlian logic which comes after grammar but before rhetoric.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Karl

[leth]

They are the logical fallacies. The bit that says 'logical' might spell out to that which they are related.

 

Sure they are fallacies and in a sense therefore has some sort of relation to logic, in the sense that they are all derived from logical reasoning and expresses the validity of reason, but they are not in any way commandments of logic. Fallacies are common mistakes that are easily proven illogical, but in no way are they any form of commandments of logic. A better representation of that would be the laws of thought, but with them the problem lies in that different systems of logic has different axioms.

[Karl]

Sure they are fallacies and in a sense therefore has some sort of relation to logic, in the sense that they are all derived from logical reasoning and expresses the validity of reason, but they are not in any way commandments of logic. Fallacies are common mistakes that are easily proven illogical, but in no way are they any form of commandments of logic. A better representation of that would be the laws of thought, but with them the problem lies in that different systems of logic has different axioms.

 

That isn't what you said. I agree that the title 'the commandments' are a corruption. I would suggest the 'principles/rules best applied to rational thought rather than laws, but it's a minor distinction.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Those are not really related to logic but to argumentation.

True, opinions do not require logic.  Understandings should be somewhat logical.

[zerostao]

That is why I periodically remind everyone that what I say is my opinion (and/or understanding).

 

Except for the existence of my chair I don't have many truths.

i wanted to respond by either mentioning van gogh's chair

or thoreau's chairs,,,

and placing too much credence in logic is in fact illogical 

or that too much credence in rationality is irrational

and that the ancients understood this 

[Karl]

i wanted to respond by either mentioning van gogh's chair

or thoreau's chairs,,,

and placing too much credence in logic is in fact illogical

or that too much credence in rationality is irrational

and that the ancients understood this

That's the stolen concept fallacy. To use logic to say logic is illogical and rationality is irrational. Anyone who does say this is effectively ruling themselves out of the argument on the grounds of gross insanity.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Karl

[leth]

That isn't what you said. I agree that the title 'the commandments' are a corruption. I would suggest the 'principles/rules best applied to rational thought rather than laws, but it's a minor distinction.

 

Well if taken out of the context, thats not what i wrote but considering the context of which i wrote my statements that is what i wrote.

 

But i wouldn't agree on fallacies being principles or rules applied to rational though, they are common pitfalls of thought and not principles to follow. The princinples should be the rules of thought, and fallacies should be regarded as effects of failing to abide to the rules of thought. The should also be a way to detect bad arguments or bad reasoning. They are important in analysis of logic but not in logic itself.

[leth]

Ok time to critique the actulla texts in the image under the pretence of them being fallacies and not at all any sort of commandments of logic:

 

 

3. Sometimes the whole is small numbers, this is badly phrased.

4. The way this is phrased is actually a reasonable technique in arguing certain premises, and a usefull technique in proving certain points and does not really have to be a fallacy. And the way it's phrased is not a good description of the form of circular reasoning that is often refered to as begging the question

6. Not all dichotomies are false dichotomies. (Nor is the fallacy itself limited to the limitation down to two options, but rather to too few options. Though the name can then either be changed or just used in a less litteral but more general sense.)

8. The burden of proof is not this easy, it generally lies on the person which makes a controversial claim and not on the person who first asks for proof. But even so it is not really as easy as that.

[Karl]

Well if taken out of the context, thats not what i wrote but considering the context of which i wrote my statements that is what i wrote.

 

But i wouldn't agree on fallacies being principles or rules applied to rational though, they are common pitfalls of thought and not principles to follow. The princinples should be the rules of thought, and fallacies should be regarded as effects of failing to abide to the rules of thought. The should also be a way to detect bad arguments or bad reasoning. They are important in analysis of logic but not in logic itself.

 

I'm going to think more simply than that :-)

 

Logic is the art of non contradictory identification according to Rand's definition. In other words it's a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality. Part of that activity is identifying common fallacies in an argument, or concept. It's a process.

 

[Aetherous]

The day that I have more free time, I will dig deep into something like this. Actually studying it and working on problems can become very complex (far beyond 10 rules), but very rewarding in terms of gaining clarity about things. I'd say it's the one subject which is a prerequisite for anything that has to do with the truth...but very few people truly study it.

[Marblehead]

That's the stolen concept fallacy. To use logic to say logic is illogical and rationality is irrational. Anyone who does say this is effectively ruling themselves out of the argument on the grounds of gross insanity.

My intuitive inspirations are almost always illogical and irrational but they are almost always closer to the truth than most things I can think up in my mind consciously.

[zerostao]

That's the stolen concept fallacy. To use logic to say logic is illogical and rationality is irrational. Anyone who does say this is effectively ruling themselves out of the argument on the grounds of gross insanity.

in fact, i am not in any argument

[zerostao]

My intuitive inspirations are almost always illogical and irrational but they are almost always closer to the truth than most things I can think up in my mind consciously.

interesting isn't it?

Edited March 29, 2016 by zerostao

[leth]

I'm going to think more simply than that :-) Logic is the art of non contradictory identification according to Rand's definition. In other words it's a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality. Part of that activity is identifying common fallacies in an argument, or concept. It's a process.

 

Given any common definition of logic or even the one you gave from Rand, it doesn't really follow that logic is a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality.

 

And sure it can be said to be a logical process to identify fallacies, but that sort of proves the point that they are not really fundamental commandments of logic themselves considering they are dependant on logical process rather than being an essential part of the logical process itself. Logical processes leads to the discovery of fallacies, but they are not really an integral part of logical process, but rather the effect of the lack thereof. Therefore I would say that avoiding fallacies is a rather backwards way of looking at a logical process, a proper logical process is commanded by laws of though rather than avoiding the effect of the lack of laws of thought. It follows that seeing analysing fallacies as a fundamental part of the process of logic makes logic a self-iterating process that cannot complete. We should really regard any "commandments" of logic an essential part of the process of logic, rather than something that requires a logical process. Explained this way it is clear that the argument that fallacies are the "commandments" of logic is indeed a fallacy itself.

[leth]

That's the stolen concept fallacy. To use logic to say logic is illogical and rationality is irrational. Anyone who does say this is effectively ruling themselves out of the argument on the grounds of gross insanity.

 

First of all you're arguing against a point that was not made.

Secondly it's not really a stolen fallacy to use logic to say that logic is illogical, or that rationality is irrational.  It is infact a rather common metalogical position. This is more or less the theoreme Tarski made as a follow up on Gödels incompletenes theoremes.

[leth]

My intuitive inspirations are almost always illogical and irrational but they are almost always closer to the truth than most things I can think up in my mind consciously.

 

Intutition is by definition irrational and illogical, but what does that say about logic and rationality?

 

How do you judge your logic and rational thought?

And if your logic and rational thought is further from the truth than your intuition, then how can you regard it as proper logic and rational thought?

[Karl]

Given any common definition of logic or even the one you gave from Rand, it doesn't really follow that logic is a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality.

 

And sure it can be said to be a logical process to identify fallacies, but that sort of proves the point that they are not really fundamental commandments of logic themselves considering they are dependant on logical process rather than being an essential part of the logical process itself. Logical processes leads to the discovery of fallacies, but they are not really an integral part of logical process, but rather the effect of the lack thereof. Therefore I would say that avoiding fallacies is a rather backwards way of looking at a logical process, a proper logical process is commanded by laws of though rather than avoiding the effect of the lack of laws of thought. It follows that seeing analysing fallacies as a fundamental part of the process of logic makes logic a self-iterating process that cannot complete. We should really regard any "commandments" of logic an essential part of the process of logic, rather than something that requires a logical process. Explained this way it is clear that the argument that fallacies are the "commandments" of logic is indeed a fallacy itself.

 

They arent commandments in my understanding-as I said previously.

 

They are part of a toolbox, they aren't a empiric panacea like a mathematical equation. However, as a guide on a forum such as this, then it might be instructive. I didn't post it, or write it, but I appreciate the effort to bring some aspects of logic here.

 

[Karl]

First of all you're arguing against a point that was not made.

Secondly it's not really a stolen fallacy to use logic to say that logic is illogical, or that rationality is irrational. It is infact a rather common metalogical position. This is more or less the theoreme Tarski made as a follow up on Gödels incompletenes theoremes.

What are you using to argue that point ?

Are you saying that your current argument is illogical and irrational, that you have tried in anyway to consider the previous statement and have just spurted out a lot of rubbish ?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Karl

[leth]

What are you using to argue that point ?

 

The arguments of the very post you quoted.

[Karl]

The arguments of the very post you quoted.

 

What, you just repeated them back like a parrot without any sense of what they meant or what you are saying ?

[leth]

They arent commandments in my understanding-as I said previously. They are part of a toolbox, they aren't a empiric panacea like a mathematical equation. However, as a guide on a forum such as this, then it might be instructive. I didn't post it, or write it, but I appreciate the effort to bring some aspects of logic here.

 

A mathematical equation is hardly in any way empirical.

While I agree that logic and argumentation is important and should be taught, I really oppose that they are misrepresented or taught using incorrect terms or misconceptions. This only leads to misunderstanding. Secondly logic should not be taught by representing it as a some sort of dogmatic epistmological method, but rather using metalogic. With these opinions in mind it should be obvious that I find the image of the original post rather problematic.