The Failure Of Logic

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you using "logical" to be synonomous with "valid" here?
(ie "logical" = "if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true")

[/ QUOTE ]

"logical" is generally synonymous with "valid", you can have a well formed logical argument that is invalid but it would be a bit weird to claim that an invalid argument is logical.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then inductive arguments are not "logical"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst you can make any inductive argument logical by including an appropriate inductive premise, it begs the question somewhat. Inductive arguments are not logical arguments but the question of whether it is reasonable to believe the conclusion of an inductive argument is one of the biggies.

An understanding of why people believe things, which is largely for inductive reasons, leads directly to an understanding of why many people are so bad at poker, why they tilt, and why even renowned poker authors go on tilt sometimes [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

chez

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, okay. I'm all for trying to persuade people not to get hung up on magic bullets.

One thing that may be effective is to clearly call attention to the fact that logic does not have a moral component and in that sense has a much more limited use when it comes to moral arguments than people assume.

Logic (IMHO) is simply a very useful tool that allows us (human beings) to tackle many difficult and not so difficult problems. Note that it is a very useful tool and in that sense I would say valuable, however, logic alone does not entail any *rich* meaning or significance (such as living a Good life or being moral).

Anyway, carry on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you say here.

[Al Mirpuri]

Nice observation. These message boards are imperfect as a medium for intellectual argument.

[Cpt Spaulding]

Actually the logical thing to do is plan the robbery at time when the homeowners are not home....Another logical thing is to not burgularize a home at all.... I can see you don't use logic to much in your thought process...You should try it. It really works.

[Cpt Spaulding]

[quote Hitler was a logician of the finest order. His logic shocked the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was also a Christian....You really need to think more before you post.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
1) No Man = No Logic ?
2) No Man = No Math ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

These are man made technologies. These technologies are used to describe the world we live in which is why your other examples correlate fairly well. As a matter of fact, there is a name for that too. Isomorphism. Look it up.

There are, however, things in our world which are not yet accurately modelled by math and logic. Their times will come when we figure them out. (For example, calculating the trajectory of an electron is currently impossible.)

You think math wasn't invented? How old is calculus? When did the 0 first come into play? What did man do when he realized that there are numbers below zero? What is the square root of -2? What is an irrational number? What about complex numbers?

These are all extensions that were added to the existing system later because they were found to be interesting and useful. (found by man)

Some of these things exist in the real world, and some do not. They are all useful, though. And they were all invented.

Here's a question for you.

It can be proven that there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. All integers are rational numbers. There are an infinite number of integers. How many irrational numbers are there, then?

Dov

[chezlaw]

Hi Dov

It takes reasoning to manifest logic and reasoning requirers logic, therefore logic was in use before man was aware of it, therefore its a discovery.

[ QUOTE ]
It can be proven that there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. All integers are rational numbers. There are an infinite number of integers. How many irrational numbers are there, then

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a lot! Come on ask a hard one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

[jimdmcevoy]

" It can be proven that there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. All integers are rational numbers. There are an infinite number of integers. How many irrational numbers are there, then? "

Well you got my attention when you mentioned this maths problem. The answer? there are an infinite amount of irrational numbers. Is there a point to your question?

[Dov]

The point is that there are known quantities larger than infinity These are not readily apparent in nature and are in fact only theoretically true.

Since there is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe, there is nothing that exists physically that is infinite in scope. (Except the number of bad beats you can be dealt in a poker game.[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Dov

[Dov]

It takes nickel to manufacture steel, and nickel was around before man, therefore steel is a discovery.

This is not true because the argument is not logical. Just because nickel is a component of steel and existed before man does not mean that anything that is made with nickel wasn't developed or invented by man.

Reason is a component of logic. To reason is to use logic. That is the definition of the word. Your argument that it takes reasoning to manifest logic is circular. You cannot draw any conclusions from this.

You are essentially saying that a=b=c, therefore c=z. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't follow logically from your argument.

For more information on the history of logic, see this for a start:

Quickly googled link

There is obviously much more than this, but I'm multitabling right now, so I don't feel like digging out my textbooks.

Hope this helps.

Dov