About logic

@Neshama,

Neshama wrote:

What do you think about this quote?

"Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence" ~ Robert Heinlein

"All the changes are only in the perceivers." - Baruch Ashlag

:eek:

Indeed there is some truth in this statement about logic,logic is not infallible."All the changes are only in the perceivers." Of course,what changes might be stated about the unperceived.Trees in a falling forest and all the kind'a stuff;) If you are saying that between subject and object it is always object which changes,that would only be true if one considers one's own body as object as well,with a transcendent self as witness,transcendent as in not in a spacetime context,the self,the will neither subject nor object.:eek: I am going back to my room now!!

"Dogmatic common sense is the death of philosophic adventure. The universe is vast." -A.N. Whitehead

@Neshama,

Neshama wrote:

What do you think about this quote?

"Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence" ~ Robert Heinlein

_______________________

It is false.

Logic is the study or science of inference. Inference is the procedure of determining whether, given that a statement (or statements) is true, and with no further information, whether a different statement is true. So, for a simple example, supposing the statements: All fish have fins, and all sharks are fish, are true, is the statement, all sharks have fins true. And the answer is, yes. Logic is the study of why that is true, and what are the rules by which we can determine whether given some statements are true, whether other statements are true.

@Neshama,

I think there is some truth in the quote.

Yes Logic can be fallible, but in most cases it is correct.
Hence within Logic one can find the security at least of being able to be right with confidence as much as being wrong with confidence.

Logic can provide the sense of security (emphasis on 'sense') of being surely right or surely wrong.

@Di Wu,

Di Wu wrote:

I think there is some truth in the quote.

Yes Logic can be fallible, but in most cases it is correct.
Hence within Logic one can find the security at least of being able to be right with confidence as much as being wrong with confidence.

Logic can provide the sense of security (emphasis on 'sense') of being surely right or surely wrong.

What is an example of fallible logic?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

What is an example of fallible logic?

Lol...well I'd say everytime a relgious fanatic tries to prove the existence of God 'because the Bible says so' etc... or the multitude of other reasons they come up with are all examples of fallible logic.

But then again on the other hand, we can't logically DISprove the existence of God.

The only difference is: logical people can ADMIT they can't logically disprove the existence of God whilst illogical people do NOT admit that they can not logically prove the existence of God.

@Neshama,

Neshama wrote:

What do you think about this quote?

"Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence" ~ Robert Heinlein

I think Robert Heinlein was mocking the scientific community with this tongue-in-cheek comment.
How about, "Religion is an organized way of going wrong with confidence" it would have the same impact on a parallel group of people who would have started the exact same thread with the exact same quote regarding religion, and someone would have used my argument, asking "How about, "Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence"..."
Interesting.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

I think Robert Heinlein was mocking the scientific community with this tongue-in-cheek comment.
How about, "Religion is an organized way of going wrong with confidence" it would have the same impact on a parallel group of people who would have started the exact same thread with the exact same quote regarding religion, and someone would have used my argument, asking "How about, "Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence"..."
Interesting.

But it is wrong about logic. So, what's the point? Just to say something amusing?

@Neshama,

He was a writer, first and foremost. Philosopher second.
So perhaps he was just saying it for the sake of amusement. I have Grumbles from the Grave here somewhere...I'll scan through it and see if it mentions or elaborates on it anywhere.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

He was a writer, first and foremost. Philosopher second.
So perhaps he was just saying it for the sake of amusement. I have Grumbles from the Grave here somewhere...I'll scan through it and see if it mentions or elaborates on it anywhere.

I suspect, philosopher fourth or fifth.

@Neshama,

Quote:

Lol...well I'd say everytime a relgious fanatic tries to prove the existence of God 'because the Bible says so' etc... or the multitude of other reasons they come up with are all examples of fallible logic.

But then again on the other hand, we can't logically DISprove the existence of God.

The only difference is: logical people can ADMIT they can't logically disprove the existence of God whilst illogical people do NOT admit that they can not logically prove the existence of God.

Actually, the argument "because the Bible says so" is an example of fallacious logic, (petitio principii, yes?) not "fallible" logic. Logic works to identify these fallacies which may pass for convincing arguments without a closer look.

Actually, I believe one of the main problems in logic is that the symbolic systems actually prove fewer valid proofs than exist in English.

@pmd,

pmd wrote:

Actually, the argument "because the Bible says so" is an example of fallacious logic, (petitio principii, yes?) not "fallible" logic. Logic works to identify these fallacies which may pass for convincing arguments without a closer look.

pmd,

I am anything but an expert in logic but I think I see here something not entirely kosher.The example of fallacious logic you give in,Because the bible says so," is not even part of the logic envolved it simply recognizes the source of the modivational intent.If I am missing something please bare with me,but if the intended meaning is that the bible is the said modivation there is nothing illogical about it.

@Neshama,

I found the book, now I'm scanning it for references to his social net.

@pmd,

pmd wrote:

Actually, the argument "because the Bible says so" is an example of fallacious logic, (petitio principii, yes?) not "fallible" logic. Logic works to identify these fallacies which may pass for convincing arguments without a closer look.

Actually, I believe one of the main problems in logic is that the symbolic systems actually prove fewer valid proofs than exist in English.

There are systems of varying strength. But, of course, you are right, as Godel showed last century when he showed that for every system there is a theorem that cannot be proved in that system.

@Neshama,

Quote:

pmd,

I am anything but an expert in logic but I think I see here something not entirely kosher.The example of fallacious logic you give in,Because the bible says so," is not even part of the logic envolved it simply recognizes the source of the modivational intent.If I am missing something please bare with me,but if the intended meaning is that the bible is the said modivation there is nothing illogical about it.

Ah, I am referring to the commonly-given example of the petitio principii (begging the question) - God exists because the Bible says so, we know the Bible is true because God exists.

Of course, in retrospect this might not have been the example Di Wu was trying to refer to, but I assumed that he was referring to this example since it is the case in a great majority of logic examples. I suppose this is a good illustration of the limitations of inductive reasoning, eh?
(1) Di Wu used the phrase "the Bible says so" in a discussion regarding logic.
(2) In 99% of instances of "the Bible says so" in a discussion regarding logic, the author is referring to an example of the circular argument fallacy.
(Inference) Di Wu was referring to an example of the circular argument fallacy.

Quote:

There are systems of varying strength. But, of course, you are right, as Godel showed last century when he showed that for every system there is a theorem that cannot be proved in that system.

Furthermore, I don't think it would be necessarily desireable to develop a system which could prove every theorem provable in English - a reading of Wittgenstein will leave you a little suspicious of natural language.

@pmd,

pmd wrote:

Ah, I am referring to the commonly-given example of the petitio principii (begging the question) - God exists because the Bible says so, we know the Bible is true because God exists.

Of course, in retrospect this might not have been the example Di Wu was trying to refer to, but I assumed that he was referring to this example since it is the case in a great majority of logic examples. I suppose this is a good illustration of the limitations of inductive reasoning, eh?
(1) Di Wu used the phrase "the Bible says so" in a discussion regarding logic.
(2) In 99% of instances of "the Bible says so" in a discussion regarding logic, the author is referring to an example of the circular argument fallacy.
(Inference) Di Wu was referring to an example of the circular argument fallacy.

Furthermore, I don't think it would be necessarily desireable to develop a system which could prove every theorem provable in English - a reading of Wittgenstein will leave you a little suspicious of natural language.

I don't think there are theorems in English. I am not sure what you mean by being "suspicious of natural language"

You are right about the earlier Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. But not of the later Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations who write something like (this is only a paraphrase) everything in (natural) language is in place as it is.

P.S. Here is the exact quote:

...it is clear that every sentence of our language is in place as it is" (98)

@kennethamy,

i think the guy just used the wrong words in his quote specifically the word "logic"
i think he was implying a pragmatic form of logic
what he meant to say was:
"syllogism is an organized way of going wrong with confidence"
even thought he didnt write the quite this way i know i know.. but this is just what im assuming he means
so instead he used the word "logic" for some unknown reason
reguardless i think he makes a good point
often times in situations we go against our confidence because we think and think about consequences and what not and decide not to do what we were confident in doing
but i think alot of people deep down just believe god exists and alls it takes is a book to make that belief true to them.. because its all a belief even when you use a pragmatical approach to inference, your still going with your intuition
even though we all know god doesnt have hands and doesnt write books and definently didnt write in english 2000 years ago lots of people still believe in god because of this
pragmatically its not clever to say "god exists because the bible says so"
but so what?
if i write in a book that I exist does that mean I exist? you cannot prove anyone exists its all a belief
and faith is a very important quality and lesson here in life.. to me anyway

@l0ck,

l0ck wrote:

i think the guy just used the wrong words in his quote specifically the word "logic"
i think he was implying a pragmatic form of logic
what he meant to say was:
"syllogism is an organized way of going wrong with confidence"
even thought he didnt write the quite this way i know i know.. but this is just what im assuming he means
so instead he used the word "logic" for some unknown reason
reguardless i think he makes a good point
often times in situations we go against our confidence because we think and think about consequences and what not and decide not to do what we were confident in doing
but i think alot of people deep down just believe god exists and alls it takes is a book to make that belief true to them.. because its all a belief even when you use a pragmatical approach to inference, your still going with your intuition
even though we all know god doesnt have hands and doesnt write books and definently didnt write in english 2000 years ago lots of people still believe in god because of this
pragmatically its not clever to say "god exists because the bible says so"
but so what?
if i write in a book that I exist does that mean I exist? you cannot prove anyone exists its all a belief
and faith is a very important quality and lesson here in life.. to me anyway

Syllogism is everyones first logic and its use in the middle ages ties to their classification systems, which were extreme. A child learns, in a sense, as we do, by classification and definition. He or she may learn that a dog is an animal with four legs and a tail, and then believe a cow is a form of dog. To distinguish between the two requires a change of definition, but the ultimate aim of a sylogism is a class of one. Concepts are knowledge.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

He was a writer, first and foremost. Philosopher second.
So perhaps he was just saying it for the sake of amusement. I have Grumbles from the Grave here somewhere...I'll scan through it and see if it mentions or elaborates on it anywhere.

No one does nothing without a philosophy. If you are comparing the relative qualities of each ability within the man you have to divide the man. I love aphorism, and not because they are always true or even generally true, but because they are encapsulations of larger arguments which one must reconstruct and examine if they are to be seen as true. There are many bold statements that upon reading one should ask: Is this true? Was this true? Is this an exageration to make a point of value? The point might be that certainty is more essential to faith than truth. Who knows truth? If it were possible to speak, and to know the truth, who would listen? Is that not why fiction is more popular than non fiction?

It is only when a fabrication is presented as a fabrication can it be established as truth. Because we feel we are true, and have an emotional attachment to the truth we feel a real pain when our sense of truth is directly challenged. For this reason truth must often be diquised as fiction to get past our defenses. I would offer as examples here some allegories like the Wizard of Oz, or Animal Farm, or the nightmare classic of 1984.

@Fido,

As far as I can see, the core principle at the base of logic is the avoidance of contradiction. Every logical deduction gives us a conclusion, the negation of which would be a contradiction. The ultimate test of whether a conclusion is logically valid is that (given the definitions of the terms you have used) its negation would involve a contradiction.

Philosophy Forum

About logic

Quick Links

My Account

able2know