The 10 Commandments of Logic

[Marblehead]

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?

I have never bothered myself with such questions.

 

I trust my intuition, I question my logic.

[leth]

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

 

No, I answered your question.  The answer refered to the argument, but wasn't really a repetition of the argument since the argument was not a reference to itself.

[Geof Nanto]

I have never bothered myself with such questions.

 

I trust my intuition, I question my logic.

 

Or you could say it's logical to trust your intuition. I guess that's what Leth means by metalogic.

 

Karl wrote: "Logic is a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality." To my observation, the reality is that few - if any - people are totally logical in the formal way he is implying. That is our reality. 

 

There's a good overview on the compex subject of logic at... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

[leth]

I have never bothered myself with such questions.

 

I trust my intuition, I question my logic.

 

If I may be frank, this combination may very well be the very pinnacle of ignorance.

 

No offense, as I trust you understand. But perhaps something to ponder upon if you value ignorance in any way.

[dust]

There's a good overview on the compex subject of logic at... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

I was just on there, looking to see if there is a universally accepted definition of 'logic'. Of course: not!

 

But a good quote is presented.

 

"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry."

 

I like to think that this is my driving force in the majority of discussions. Inquiry, not dogma. All of the "commandments" presented above really just serve to present a selection of things one should not do if one intends free inquiry into a subject. I'm sure we're all guilty of it far more than we realize, though...

Edited March 29, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Or you could say it's logical to trust your intuition.

Okay, you could say that.  In fact, you have.  I wouldn't.  Hehehe.  But I won't disagree with you either.

[Marblehead]

If I may be frank, this combination may very well be the very pinnacle of ignorance.

 

No offense, as I trust you understand. But perhaps something to ponder upon if you value ignorance in any way.

 

You can't be Frank.  You are Leth.

 

I think you have confused ignorance with value.

 

Intuition requires no facts, no data.  It is spontaneous.  It is our "truth".

 

Logic requires facts and data.  We oftentimes cannot access all the facts and data in order to make a logical assertion.  If we make an assertion it is likely that we will not be totally correct due to lacking facts and data.  And then we even have our own biases to content with.  Our biases will possibly tend us toward false assumptions.

 

And then, I don't consider relying on my intuition to be ignorance.  In fact, I feel it has helped me in many ways during my lifetime.  But then, I have a lot of life experience that my intuition can draw upon when it does inspire me.

 

Logic?  Sure.  My chair is real.  Witness:  my ass isn't on the floor.

 

Logic?  I want to mow the lawn.  I must first get the mower out of the storage shed.

 

There are many times in our life when we need use logic.  Othertimes we just do what needs be done.  That's called wu wei.  If not intuitively inspired then do nothing.

[Marblehead]

Logic and math are what they are; to use meta-logical theorems to say that logic and math are invalid is unfaithful to the content of the theorems as they relate only to specific qualities* of formal systems.

Have you ever heard of "Creative Accounting"?

 

With math you can present any conclusion you wish to present.  (My business took a loss and I owe no taxes.)

 

Logic can be used the same way.  The conclusion is supportable but the data used was very limited and therefore the conclusion was false.

[Geof Nanto]

Logic requires facts and data.  We oftentimes cannot access all the facts and data in order to make a logical assertion.  If we make an assertion it is likely that we will not be totally correct due to lacking facts and data.  And then we even have our own biases to content with.  Our biases will possibly tend us toward false assumptions.

 

And then, I don't consider relying on my intuition to be ignorance.  In fact, I feel it has helped me in many ways during my lifetime.  But then, I have a lot of life experience that my intuition can draw upon when it does inspire me.

 

Yes, to be totally rational would require not only knowledge of everything but also of every possible combination of outcomes from any action over time. 

 

 

Logic?  I want to mow the lawn.  I must first get the mower out of the storage shed.

 

I need to mow some of grass here but it's raining. Most of my land is forested and takes care of itself. But I have a few acres of grass that I maintain around my cabin. I have a 4WD mower that's fun to use - I need it because some of the land is very steep.

 

[Marblehead]

I need to mow some of grass here but it's raining. Most of my land is forested and takes care of itself. But I have a few acres of grass that I maintain around my cabin. I have a 4WD mower that's fun to use - I need it because some of the land is very steep.

Nice mower.  Yeah, the proper tool for the job.  That's nature's way too.

 

I wish I could get some decent rain.

 

(How's that for going off topic?)

[Marblehead]

What you mention is not really much of an issue,

 

True, but then, I had to speak from my perspective.

 

I don't question the concepts of Mathematics and Logic.  I do question my own logic oftentimes.

 

And I do have a handle on math as far as my personal needs go.

 

But then, I feel that questioning my own logic is valid, just as valid as not questioning my intuitional inspirations.  Firm conclusions can be obtained regarding logic.  Much of our intuitional inspirations are so well hidden in our mind that it is unlikely we could ever rationalize them.

[Geof Nanto]

(How's that for going off topic?)

 

Yes, I deliberately went off topic. Was that logical or illogical? Take your pick depending on your frame of reference.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I deliberately went off topic. Was that logical or illogical? Take your pick depending on your frame of reference.

Interesting, really.  This speaks to the flow of our thoughts and how our brain can so often make irrational links from one concept to another.  We really can't call this logical, I think.  But it happens all the time.

 

To be fair to logic we must have strict parameters.  The Ten Commandments above are a good guide.  This is not effective in casual conversation though.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I don't think anyone has really noticed that the exemplar of the these "Ten Commandments" of logic, the Ten Commandments of the "Old Testament" are largely negative and state what one "Shalt not do", which is why these are a collection of logical fallacies, things which you shouldn't do in reasoning.  So all of this talk about these not being a guide to logic are misplaced, they are a guide to the rocky shoals which should be avoided.

 

As for waiting 'til a ripe old age to study dusty, boring books on logic, why not start now with your family and friends playing games such as "WFF 'n' Proof", a game of propositional calculus, or the game that deals with logical fallacies, "The Propaganda Game", you noobs can find out about what us Sixties math/science nerds have known for decades by going here:

 

Games for Thinkers

 

Then you can learn how to give a "Thinker's Damn".

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Slight change in format.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Geof Nanto]

Interesting, really.  This speaks to the flow of our thoughts and how our brain can so often make irrational links from one concept to another.  We really can't call this logical, I think.  But it happens all the time.

 

To be fair to logic we must have strict parameters.  The Ten Commandments above are a good guide.  This is not effective in casual conversation though.

 

Yes, these commandments of logic are useful when applied appropriately. (Hence I appreciate Leth’s clarifications on their limitations.)

 

I’ve noticed you are much clearer and more comfortable with distinctions and definitions than me. For instance I tend to use words like 'logical' and 'rational' interchangeably. I’d say your reality is more clear-cut than mine.  For me, ‘reality’ is very much an ambiguous concept. 

 

I suspect we reside on different sides of the two fundamental views on the nature of ‘reality’; namely realism and constructivism. A simple realism argues that reality is as it is and it can be cognised and represented as such. This view underpins the scientific method and obviously has much validity - as, for instance, our technology testifies. 

 

On the other hand, a constructivist's view of reality posits that ‘reality’ only emerges as a result of construction by an observer. This does not mean that there is no reality, but that it emerges as a reality only when it is observed. For example, I can’t even image how the microbats that live in my house perceive reality using echolocation and their bat brains.  I think of myself and all the wild creatures that share my house and live in the surrounding forest as living in parallel realities. Sometimes aspects our realities intersect (for instance, when we bump into each other), but mostly, though we share a common environment, we have our own realities. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Yueya

[Karl]

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.

 

I have no sense as to what you are getting at. Logic is the art of non contradictory identification according to Ayn Rand's definition.

 

So, we have an art, and an art needs to be practised. So first you have to have some kind of formal approach to get down the basics. Just like painting you must have a basic grounding in the techniques, materials and styles before plunging in. So, I fail to see why you think that would be dogmatic ? Don't you first need to learn the controls of a car, the traffic signs, road markings, laws, basic mechanical requirements before you set off driving. Each driver learns them, adapts them, enhances them as they need.

 

What do you mean by meta logic ?

[Geof Nanto]

So, we have an art, and an art needs to be practised. So first you have to have some kind of formal approach to get down the basics. Just like painting you must have a basic grounding in the techniques, materials and styles before plunging in. So, I fail to see why you think that would be dogmatic ? Don't you first need to learn the controls of a car, the traffic signs, road markings, laws, basic mechanical requirements before you set off driving. Each driver learns them, adapts them, enhances them as they need. What do you mean by meta logic ?

 

I like it that you're now describing logic as an art. Philosophers can also be seen (not exclusively) as artists whose medium is abstract thought. From this standpoint, philosophy is the art of telling the abstract truth as fully, exactly, and affectingly as possible, or, alternatively, of drawing, with affecting exactness or convincing rational rhetoric, the exact limits to the ability to tell an abstract truth

[Junko]

What happens to a person who can't see things logically and then one explain logic?

[Brian]

What happens to a person who can't see things logically and then one explain logic?

They think they have discovered a most magical tool and then they believe anyone who tells them it isn't so magical after all simply must not understand it as intimately as they do.

 

<shrug>

[thelerner]

hmnn, I took 2 classes on logic in college.  First one was centered around things like the 10 commandments the 2nd was bit more like computer programming with syllogism and proofs.   Long lists of grouping and if thens..

 

Frankly it gave me an appreciation for Lewis Carroll, Mullah Nasrudin and all kinds of crazy wisdom. 

 

Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is to step backwards. 

Crazy, but sometimes crazy true.

Edited March 30, 2016 by thelerner

[niki]

Thank you. Someone very close to me has been harping on about this particular topic for months. He just got back on it tonight, then I saw this. I love synchronicity. It gives life meaning.

[Karl]

What happens to a person who can't see things logically and then one explain logic?

 

You can't help but see things logically.

[Karl]

hmnn, I took 2 classes on logic in college.  First one was centered around things like the 10 commandments the 2nd was bit more like computer programming with syllogism and proofs.   Long lists of grouping and if thens..

 

Frankly it gave me an appreciation for Lewis Carroll, Mullah Nasrudin and all kinds of crazy wisdom. 

 

Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is to step backwards. 

Crazy, but sometimes crazy true.

 

Pretty similar for me. Mine was An introduction to logic.

Informal fallacies

Deductive reasoning

Hypothetical and alternative arguments

Syllogisms

The square of opposition

Definitions

Inductive reasoning

Mills method

Inductive fallacies

Analogies

[dust]

I don't think anyone has really noticed that the exemplar of the these "Ten Commandments" of logic, the Ten Commandments of the "Old Testament" are largely negative and state what one "Shalt not do", which is why these are a collection of logical fallacies, things which you shouldn't do in reasoning.  So all of this talk about these not being a guide to logic are misplaced, they are a guide to the rocky shoals which should be avoided.

 

This is true. But... I'm not, in the first place, sure that I like the idea of people supposedly intent on the genuine search for 'truth' through logic referring back to ancient nonsense texts for inspiration on guidelines. It seems unnecessarily ironic and anachronistic.

 

Rather than engineering precisely ten negative 'commandments', why not simply outline what logic should be, and then give exactly as many examples as deemed necessary to explain what to do and what to not do?

 

I'm just being pedantic, of course

[Karl]

This is true. But... I'm not, in the first place, sure that I like the idea of people supposedly intent on the genuine search for 'truth' through logic referring back to ancient nonsense texts for inspiration on guidelines. It seems unnecessarily ironic and anachronistic.

 

Rather than engineering precisely ten negative 'commandments', why not simply outline what logic should be, and then give exactly as many examples as deemed necessary to explain what to do and what to not do?

 

I'm just being pedantic, of course

 

That would be a very long post. I applaud anyone who takes on the task of explaining logic to a group who largely live in a world which they believe is an illusion.