Logic, a definition

[niin]

Logic, a definition

 

To define is to understand...

 

My look on logic and how we use it.

 

The humand mind use a system with gives "value" to information.

When we talk about this value, it is allways in relation to what we are talking about.

When talking logic one can use this "value" to grade statements.

 

"High" value statements is called "logical" statements.

"Low" value statements is called "illogical" statements.

"Max" value statements is called "true" statements.

"Minimum" value statements is called "false" statements.

 

High or low value is somthing that varies from person to person.

As such it can be difficult (if not impossible) to come to agreement with another person as to what is logical.

"Arguing" logic is only reasonable using max (or minimum) value statements.

You can use high value statement to work out other "logical" statements, but you can not say that logic tell...that this information is true.

To do that we have to agree to a reference frame for which to dicuss the statement. This "frame of reference" must be a max (or minimum) value statement.

 

This is the basic definition as i see it.

 

Anyone who want to discuss this?

[ronthepon]

I would suggest an alternate definition:

A process by which a group of statements are used to gauge the truth value of a compound statement.

 

I get the feeling that I know nothing in this feild by the looks on your faces.

[niin]

I would suggest an alternate definition:

A process by which a group of statements are used to gauge the truth value of a compound statement.

 

This would be more in the way of defining logical argumentation.

My post is supposed to be a definition of the concept of logic. :cup:

I am not saying your definition is wrong...only that you are defining something ells.

[ronthepon]

So what you are interested in is a definition for the logic we refer to when we gauge IQ?

 

Well, that's better, because I hate mathematical logic.

 

I'll be checking this thread out frequently then...

[niin]

So what you are interested in is a definition for the logic we refer to when we gauge IQ?

 

Well, that's better, because I hate mathematical logic.

 

I think a IQ test is a pattern recognition and calculating test.

Logic do not seem nessesary for taking one.

 

The definition of the concept of logic is surpossed to include mathematical logic.

[Racoon]

 

The definition of the concept of logic is surpossed to include mathematical logic.

 

This is an interesting thread Niin. :)

 

People talk about being logical all the time. And we know that many people act "illogically".

 

I think you made a good point on values. But you need to define those values a little more clearly.

What if I said something like "Trees are Big" ?

 

Mathematic logic is simpler. If A + B = C, then C = B + A.

 

as for Logical arguement, it needs a structure.

premise &

conclusion

 

and the two types of logical arguement

deductive

Inductive

 

For logic to be valid, all the premises are true, and hence its conclusion is true.

 

Trees are Big. Yes, trees are big. But , not all trees are big.

= Not good logic. Lower "value" in your definition...

 

I have a little more, but I'll see what everyone thinks about this so far.

 

Does it sound Logical?? :) :cup:

Racoon

[Tormod]

To define is to understand...

 

I beg to differ. A definition in this sense is not understanding but an attempt to quantify something. If I say "vacuum is the absence of matter" then what sort of understanding have I provided? It is all relative - it will depend on how much the reader knows (ie, it has a knowledge bias).

 

You can use high value statement to work out other "logical" statements, but you can not say that logic tell...that this information is true.

To do that we have to agree to a reference frame for which to dicuss the statement. This "frame of reference" must be a max (or minimum) value statement.

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if we agree upon the limits of logic, we will know what is true and what is false? Or are you saying that we can reach a concensus?

 

Now, why would a consensus be interesting?

 

Science is about finding the theories that best explain what we observe, and then test them. This requires logic, but it also requires certain leaps of faith (we must assume that such and such is true). But the very fundamental concept of the scientific method disallows us from ever proving anything *final*, thus we can never really know any "truth", regardless of how well we define the limits of anything (and how do we quantify these limits in the first place?).

[hallenrm]

Now, why would a consensus be interesting?

 

Science is about finding the theories that best explain what we observe, and then test them. This requires logic, but it also requires certain leaps of faith (we must assume that such and such is true). But the very fundamental concept of the scientific method disallows us from ever proving anything *final*, thus we can never really know any "truth", regardless of how well we define the limits of anything (and how do we quantify these limits in the first place?).

 

A very useful input indeed Tormod! So lets proceed further.

 

I tried the wikipedia for a definition of logic (encyclopedias are often a good source of definitions!)

 

Here's its intro

 

Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.

 

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality

 

Evidently, logic is not the most useful tool for real science. Generally it is used for creating a false impression, that is for obfusication.

[niin]

I think you made a good point on values. But you need to define those values a little more clearly.

What if I said something like "Trees are Big" ?

I usually think of the "value" as "usefullnes". Like infomation, that can be used to predict the future, is pretty usefull.

 

"Trees are Big" would be a logical stamenet to you, if you had only ever seen big trees.

If I had seen "small" trees then i would say...that it is a false statement.

I could never convince you bye arguing, unless you agree to a premise(s) that can be used to logical show it to be false.

 

Like this:

premise 1: "A tree can be big"

premise 2: "A tree can be smal"

we could then compare the statments and conclude that the statment "Trees are Big" is false

 

as for Logical arguement, it needs a structure.

premise &

conclusion

This is included in my definition.

You argree to a "max (or minimum) value statement" (premise) and you use comparativ logic to get "logical statement" (conclusion)

 

If I say "vacuum is the absence of matter" then what sort of understanding have I provided?

A definition is a true statement

If I agree that your statement is a definition. then i get the understanding that is your statement. The knowledge.

The closer a definition is to being true the better the understanding is.

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if we agree upon the limits of logic, we will know what is true and what is false?

Or are you saying that we can reach a concensus?

If i understand you correctly...concensus

"consensus" is the same as "agreement"

 

Now, why would a consensus be interesting?

Usually people doesn't do stuff unless it agrees with em.

[Racoon]

You mis-quoted me Niin, at the bottom of your last statement.

I understand English is not your first language, so lets be considerate ;)

 

When I say "Trees are Big" does that imply I mean all trees?

Don't I know that trees start out small but grow big?

 

therefore Trees aren't always big, but I perceive trees to be big.

 

 

 

In a deductive logic argument, the Truth or Falsehood of its conclusion does not determine the validity or invalidity of an argument, Nor does the validity of an argument gaurantee the truth of its conclusion.

 

Ok, I confused myself :hihi: :esmoking:

 

You make categorical propositions - which offer assertions about classes - affirming or denying that one class is included in the other.

 

you then need to consider:

Posteriori -

* an arguement from effect to cause

* Knowledge based on experience

 

Priori -

* Argument from cause to effect

* Knowledge independant of experience

 

there is also

the universal - what is common to many different items (eg. redness is common to all things red (Trees need CO2)

 

The particular - Single, or individual, as distinct from class or universal.

"sometimes" (sometimes Trees are Big)

 

Does any of this make sense to you Niin?

because I am confused! :) :hihi:

 

:)

[niin]

When I say "Trees are Big" does that imply I mean all trees?

yes, it does. (to me)

trees (as in more than one tree but not specified) is illogical

you have a "something undefined = something defined" statement.

about which we can say nothing.

 

Does any of this make sense to you Niin?

Are you implying there is something wrong with what i wrote ealier?

Or are you asking me if i agree with your statements in that post?

Or maybe Both? :xx:

[Tormod]

A definition is a true statement

 

If you mean true in a logical sense, then I still beg to differ.

 

A definition can be anything. It takes work to find out if it really has any value or not.

 

For example: "A moon's orbit is a result of the inverse square law."

 

This is a definition. Is it true or false? Does it have value? And if it is false, but you believe it to be true, is the knowledge you have gained of any value at all? Can it have negative value (ie bad knowledge).

 

If I agree that your statement is a definition. then i get the understanding that is your statement. The knowledge.

The closer a definition is to being true the better the understanding is.

 

That's exactly my point. Consesus does not make anything "true", no matter how logically valied a statement is. That is why the scientific method is so important to gain knowledge.

 

(Remember you're posting this in the "Philosophy of science" forum and not the "Philosophy" forum).

 

Usually people doesn't do stuff unless it agrees with em.

 

This is something entirely different and has to do with morals and personal values.

[Racoon]

yes, it does. (to me)

 

Are you implying there is something wrong with what i wrote ealier?

Or are you asking me if i agree with your statements in that post?

Or maybe Both? :D

 

Ok, to You - which becomes perception, a whole new animal...

 

No, I am not implying there is something wrong with your statements. ( other people will do that :D )

 

I was implying that I am getting myself confused! :) >>> :xx:

 

OK,

Categorical Proposition:

Categorical Proposition offer assertions about "Classes", affirming or denying that one class is included in one another; either in whole or in part.

 

Consider the example: No athletes are vegetarians; & All Soccer players are Athletes: Therefore no soccer players are vegetarian.

The premises and conclusions of the argument are assertions about classes of athletes and classes of soccer players.

 

I think your classes of values stated in your first post should be the "Four standard forms of categorical propositions"

 

-Universal Affirmative

-Universal Negative

-Particular Affirmative

-Particular Negative

 

Does any of this make sense to you Niin? ;)

I realize the language barrier, and you are doing a great job!

Racoon

[niin]

"A moon's orbit is a result of the inverse square law."

 

This is a definition. Is it true or false? Does it have value? And if it is false, but you believe it to be true, is the knowledge you have gained of any value at all? Can it have negative value (ie bad knowledge).

It could very easy not be a definition.

If it is a definition...then it is true. (by definition) :xx:

 

A wrong definition can be logical...and therefor have value.

 

Bad knowledge is inferior knowledge.

"Value" used as a comparing factor does not get any meaning out of the term "negative" (as in math). "Value" is only used to determine wich is better (more usefull).

 

That's exactly my point. Consesus does not make anything "true", no matter how logically valied a statement is. That is why the scientific method is so important to gain knowledge.

 

Did i say consensus make something true? I don't believe i did.

But bringing up the subject...

The scientific method use the concept of consensus all the time.

When you are repeating experiments and confirming results, you are trying to get consensus.

Do you agree? :)

 

(Remember you're posting this in the "Philosophy of science" forum and not the "Philosophy" forum).

 

People offen use "logic" when discussing science so I would think this the proper place for this topic.

Are you saying i am getting of topic?

[kmarinas86]

Non-circular (Practical) Logic - a cognitive process whose input includes assumptions (for deduction) or sensory data (for induction) and whose output is implied knowledge (implication) that is unique from those assumptions or sensory data.

 

A statement is rendered true if the understanding decoded, via either the sublanguage or slanguage that is used to encode the statement or the sublanguage or slanguage used by the decoder, consists of information that corresponds to the original event, person, place, thing, or abstract idea responsible for the transcription or utterance of the first instantation of the statement in the sublanguage or slanguage used to encode the statement.

[Jehu]

To define a term such as “Logic” is to give its precise meaning, and since the precise meaning of any term is conventionally prescribed, it follows that only those prescribed meanings are valid definitions. This, however, does not mean that the thing which the term denotes is itself valid, for there is a valid definition of a Unicorn, though no such animal actually exists.

 

One valid definition of “Logic” is “ the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference”. However, if I understand niin’s original posting correctly, it is not the definition of Logic itself that is in dispute, but the principles and axioms upon which this “science of reasoning” is based. Logic, like every science, takes a particular domain of reality (i.e., human reasoning) as its field of study, and then attempts to discover, through observation and inference, the true nature of that object. By the term, “nature”, I mean those primitive elements that are necessary and sufficient to the thing’s being perceived or thought about, along with those principles or laws which govern the interaction of these primitive elements. It would appear then that niin is attempting to redefine those primitive elements, but I am not clear on what those elements are, nor how they relate. Furthermore, I would ask what precisely is meant by the terms “value” and “information”.

 

Regards, Jehu

[niin]

Jehu, thanks for your post

 

if I understand niin’s original posting correctly, it is not the definition of Logic itself that is in dispute, but the principles and axioms upon which this “science of reasoning” is based.

The word "Logic" covers alot. I am trying to define (describe) the underlying foundation of the concept. I don't mind going into the normal understanding of the concept, but i would just prefer to define the basics first. I was hoping for more input about the basics before wanting to go forward with the topic.

 

It would appear then that niin is attempting to redefine those primitive elements, but I am not clear on what those elements are, nor how they relate.

I do not understand what you are talking about here.

 

Furthermore, I would ask what precisely is meant by the terms “value” and “information”.

Information;

Information is an element in a system.

If we have the system of possible numbers 1-10 and we have the number 2 in the system then that 2 is information.

 

Value:

Value is the usefulness of something.

one hand is usefull. Two hands are more usefull.