For what purpose does formal logic exist? Is it a philosophy or is it a math?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
For what purpose does formal logic exist? Is it a philosophy or is it a math?
For what purpose does formal logic exist? Is it a philosophy or is it a math?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
To make dogmatic empiricists doubt their faith.
scientific precision
it's a form o' logic
hello moron. pick up a logic 101 book. on the first page it will tell you that logic is the science of reason. it is a rational science like math, except it deals with the possibilities of argumentation structures and their possible relations to truth. that is why it has so much overlap with philosophy. so to answer your question: read.
>that is why it has so much overlap with philosophy
>Namegays as "quality control"
>Posts absolute garbage with dogshite grammar
You can't refute anything I said, so you sperg out like a child.
Logic is not a philosophy, otherwise it'd be useless and vain. Philosophers are fools who can't even prove anything exists outside their minds, and that's a result of them adhering to atheist/humanist beliefs.
>Philosophers are fools who can't even prove anything exists outside their minds, and that's a result of them adhering to atheist/humanist beliefs.
smfh
See
>You can't refute anything I said, so you sperg out like a child.
I accept your concession btw. Feel free to prove your beliefs or stop embarrassing yourself and stop posting, your post is really just extremely low quality spam. And thanks for proving philosophers are fools who can't prove anything too.
>I accept your concession btw.
You would be thinking about food at a time like this, fatass.
I said logic is a *science* that has a lot of *overlap* with philosophy. reread my post 3 times before replying.
quality control has nothing to do with grammar, only the content of posts. your posts are grossly misinformed, attacking base caricatures of ideas you yourself hold. are you really stupid enough to think all philosophers think the same? are you stupid enough to think that there haven't been philosophers who are restricted to belief in exterior reality as an article of faith, while still being faithful to the Christian God? have you ever read philosophy, or do you get your opinions from YouTube videos?
even the man who proclaimed gods death knew that the "exterior world" is real.
please, if you have not read the very thing you're critical of, leave this board. IQfy is right around the corner.
I'm not going to baby sit illiterate morons who can't type properly and clearly won't even pretend to argue in good faith. You're a loser.
what about my argument was bad faith? why can't you respond properly? it's almost like you don't know what the frick you're talking about. back to IQfy you go, fricking embarrassment.
by the way, you meant babysit*, illiterate moron.
>what about my argument was bad faith?
Every post you've made in this thread was in bad faith, full of logical fallacies and personal attacks. You never once proved anything you asserted, you can only "support" it by insulting anyone who doesn't think like you. You sperged out like a child at the OP too for asking questions.
>why can't you respond properly?
Don't look in a mirror, lunatic.
>by the way, you meant babysit*, illiterate moron.
Don't look into etymology, idiot.
You're supposed to give examples, try again bud.
I'd be quoting half of everything you posted, troll.
then it wouldn't be difficult to pick an example, buddy. just because you know the difference between a NAND gate and your mother's c**t doesn't mean you understand logic.
Thanks for continuing to prove my point, troll.
Most logicians are deflationists now an believe logics are just types of "game" and that truth is just something defined in terms of games. Quantifier variance and logical pluralism are quite common positions now.
The position you mention is more a halfway house to the extent that it limits "reason" to the mind.
But the classical view is indeed the correct one. Logic is the study of the Logos which determines both thought and being itself.
I haven't really paid much attention to developments in the pure logical world since wittgenstein so you might be right. are you saying I'm conflating classical logic with formal logic? that might be the case since I basically stopped learning at predicate logic.
no arguments in regards to the logos, but I doubt that's what OP was asking.
But logical reasoning would require agreement on the premises, so I don’t see what use focusing on reason has if we can’t even get people to agree on the fundamental truths like when life begins. How does logic reconcile this and other abstract truths?
nothing you said has anything to do with logic
So we can never apply this correct reasoning to anything? It's just a thought exercise? Even pure mathematics sometimes finds use and become applied mathematics, is there no such equivalent for logic?
99% of the reason it exists is "it's kinda fun"
Same reason 99% of math people go into math, and some guys spend all day putting the same amount of effort that classical philologists put into deciphering ancient languages into deciphering whether Chewbacca's grandfather had AIDS so they can update Wookiepedia. It appeals to a certain kind of mind that likes the catharsis of lining 'em up and knocking 'em down, whether the 'em is a calculus equation, the conclusions of a complex set of inferences, or the minutiae of Chewbacca's parentage as only revealed on the back of a limited edition Pog from 1995. They palpably feel like they're "isolating" the truth.
Logic is a math. Philosophers who subscribe to atheism/humanism can't explain why logic or math work so well in their worldview. It's just a "happy coincidence" to them, but that's not a real explanation. They can't explain why something they might call a "social construct" works so well and independently of any man's mind.
t. programmer
go back to IQfy moron. logicism died a century ago. atheism is a theological position, and humanism has nothing to do with logic. you're unbelievably ignorant.
It's kind of a nexus of both, and if you want to maintain a clear distinction between the two you should definitely read Laws of Form by G. Spencer-Brown
>be human agent
>learn logic
>oops, can't learn logic an sich, only interpret text
>change thought patterns within yourself only
>no logic learned
many such cases!
Logic is about describing causal relationships, reasons for why things happen. Math and philosophy comes from logic. In old mythological thinking the rough idea of casual logic is often referenced using the imagery of a tree. Formalizing abstract rules gives a common framework that's reproducible even in hardware like computers.
Logic describes tautological relations.
All this post tells me is you don't understand any of the words you used in the post.
Logic is just language used to simplify abstract thought processes into something more workable. It's neither philosophy nor math.
Haven´t read a single good answer here so I'll try to give my view on it as an actual mathematician/logician.
Formal logic is part of mathematics and contains a number of very interesting topics. It looks at mathematical language (syntax), mathematical statements and how they are exemplified in models. It also looks a lot at proof systems, so basically, if mathematical reasoning is correct or not and if all correct statements can be proven mathematically. Also think of topics like computability (can a computer compute it) and formal definitions of programs and computers (Turing machines, Halting problem, etc).
Seeing philosophers attempt to use formal logic in a meaningful way is often very adorable since they have no clue why they are using it and how they are supposed to, it just makes them (analytic philosophers) feel credible and smart.
wow you must really suck at your job
Formal logic is pure math. Philosophers are not qualified to talk about it. Any abuse of formal logic outside of its scope by philosophers is a cringe LARP.
Holy frick who let the IQfyeuds who don't know shit about logic into this thread
one of the better answers