We Should Have A Logic Area In Here!!!

Website Policy and Announcements
21

The stuff I quoted above is from “An Introduction to Logic” produced at Indiana University. We obviously have different sources.

Come on, get serious. There is no such thing as “Introduction to Logic” produced by Indiana University. Indiana University does not “produce” works. Specific people of units at IU do. Does this have an actual author – what’s the name? Is this published by Indiane University Press? What is the ISBN number? Is this a handout for some class you’re taking? What is the class – what department, what specific course? Who is the instructor? What authority does he cite to support his totally erroneous notion of induction? I hereby challenge you to substantiate the implication that anyone in the world, other than you, is this confused about induction. Are you merely saying “Some drunken jackass wrote this nonsense, and they were physically located at IU when they committed this crime against the name of logic”?

I believe that all of your erroneous assertions about induction have been thoroughly refuted, so all you seem to have left is evasion.

22

I hereby challenge you to substantiate the implication that anyone in the world, other than you, is this confused about induction.

I accept this challenge

Reasoning through probabilities is the predominant view of induction in universities these days. It is also known as Bayesian reasoning after an eighteenth-century clergyman named Thomas Bayes.

23

Nice parallel, but did you notice the rhetoric you just produce, no argument was put forth.

Way to make an assertion without providing evidence for your theory. And also, nice ad hominem.

Keep running with that straw man.

Is that so? I am absolutely confident that all of my views are tied to reality, and that my being is capable of interpreting that reality. How is my source any different than yours?

nimble,

the flaw of the probability theorem is in assuming that whatever was calculated as most probable solution, is taken as that which is a solution. The theorem is guilty of the kind of induction you propose with your definition. Something has 99% probability, therefore it will happen. In mathematical logic, that’s not true. It’s not even 99% true because in mathematical logic there is no such thing.

I’ve written a few days ago a blog entry I named “Odds for Success.” I suggest you read it.

24

nimble,

the flaw of the probability theorem is in assuming that whatever was calculated as most probable solution, is taken as that which is a solution. The theorem is guilty of the kind of induction you propose with your definition. Something has 99% probability, therefore it will happen. In mathematical logic, that’s not true. It’s not even 99% true because in mathematical logic there is no such thing.

I’ve written a few days ago a blog entry I named “Odds for Success.” I suggest you read it.

What do you mean? Mathematical logic is deductive, and I agree that deductive logic is valid. It’s inductive logic that is invalid, but let me read your blog. And I’ll post again after my class today.

(oh and definition of valid=“if the premises are true, then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.” Definition of invalid=“if the premises are true, then it may still be possible for the argument to yeild a false conclusion.”

25

Nimble, here’s what’s going on. You were shortchanged in your Logic class, although unfortunately the corrective process was muddled by your stubbornness in face of knowledgeable authority here.

When I took a Logic class 3 or so years ago, we also had to buy an Introduction to Logic book, maybe it’s the same one as what you have (hardcover, pinkish tint, mathematical graphs splashed across the page, I forget the author). I was likewise taught that Induction is *defined* as logic of probabilities, whereas Deduction is logic of certainties. Upon reflection, I realized that this modern definition (and it is only modern, because Aristotle, the very authority you cite, did not define it this way) is actually proof of modern philosophers’ laziness and conceptual fuzziness. Originally we inherited the Classic definitions of the two words, which everyone has been trying to convince you of here:

Deduction, given true premises, will necessarily give a true conclusion, but it does not provide you with any new knowledge, nor can you verify the said premises by another process of deduction.

Induction has room for error, though it can still provide neecessarily true conclusions (if you take context into account), and is the only way of validating deductive premises, and for arriving at any new knowledge.

Aristotle, however, didn’t develop inductive logic as much as the deductive syllogism, so since the modern philosophers weren’t babyfed by him with all of the answers, they decided to proclaim that the Inductive logic had no answers to begin with. In other words, due to impotence they decided to switch the definition of Induction as something that *by design and conception* can never be certain, and that we should not demand precise and definite answers from philosophers who have none. However, if one assumes some arbitrary rules and applies them in dogmatic and acontextual ways, he can produce some semblance of a syllogism, and this modern professors call Deductive logic.

So, if I were you, I wouldn’t go around saying I know everything about logic, after taking a course entitled “Introduction to Logic”, and moreover taking a course that is based on modern philosophy and modern theories of logic and linguistics. That’s why I said you were shortchanged; I hope the money you paid for the course at least gave you a checkmark for General Education requirements, because it bought little else.

26

What do you mean? Mathematical logic is deductive, and I agree that deductive logic is valid. It’s inductive logic that is invalid,

I see that your pleading for help on the other thread on this issue was a false cry, and you now have a skeptic agenda since you have been thoroughly answered on both threads.

You can’t invalidate (in your eyes) induction and then smuggly assume you can keep your deduction. What do you think the premises of your deductions are? They are general principles (or just generalities depending on the material) that were arrived at by induction. You can’t have deduction until somebody has done some thinking, performed inductions, and given you the material to work with, i.e., your deductive premises.

So, you know have no valid means of reasoning. Happy babbling.

27

Nimble, here’s what’s going on. You were shortchanged in your Logic class, although unfortunately the corrective process was muddled by your stubbornness in face of knowledgeable authority here.

When I took a Logic class 3 or so years ago, we also had to buy an Introduction to Logic book, maybe it’s the same one as what you have (hardcover, pinkish tint, mathematical graphs splashed across the page, I forget the author). I was likewise taught that Induction is *defined* as logic of probabilities, whereas Deduction is logic of certainties. Upon reflection, I realized that this modern definition (and it is only modern, because Aristotle, the very authority you cite, did not define it this way) is actually proof of modern philosophers’ laziness and conceptual fuzziness. Originally we inherited the Classic definitions of the two words, which everyone has been trying to convince you of here:

Deduction, given true premises, will necessarily give a true conclusion, but it does not provide you with any new knowledge, nor can you verify the said premises by another process of deduction.

Induction has room for error, though it can still provide neecessarily true conclusions (if you take context into account), and is the only way of validating deductive premises, and for arriving at any new knowledge.

Aristotle, however, didn’t develop inductive logic as much as the deductive syllogism, so since the modern philosophers weren’t babyfed by him with all of the answers, they decided to proclaim that the Inductive logic had no answers to begin with. In other words, due to impotence they decided to switch the definition of Induction as something that *by design and conception* can never be certain, and that we should not demand precise and definite answers from philosophers who have none. However, if one assumes some arbitrary rules and applies them in dogmatic and acontextual ways, he can produce some semblance of a syllogism, and this modern professors call Deductive logic.

So, if I were you, I wouldn’t go around saying I know everything about logic, after taking a course entitled “Introduction to Logic”, and moreover taking a course that is based on modern philosophy and modern theories of logic and linguistics. That’s why I said you were shortchanged; I hope the money you paid for the course at least gave you a checkmark for General Education requirements, because it bought little else.

I thank you for such a polite and revealing reply. I will read the materials that I need to, to sort this out. Thank you again.

I see that your pleading for help on the other thread on this issue was a false cry, and you now have a skeptic agenda since you have been thoroughly answered on both threads.

You can’t invalidate (in your eyes) induction and then smuggly assume you can keep your deduction. What do you think the premises of your deductions are? They are general principles (or just generalities depending on the material) that were arrived at by induction. You can’t have deduction until somebody has done some thinking, performed inductions, and given you the material to work with, i.e., your deductive premises.

So, you know have no valid means of reasoning. Happy babbling.

As for you, this is the reason most people don’t like Objectivism. You couldn’t just reply your point without some insulting or cynical remark. You are condescending and unjustly so. Truthfully, if i could swear without getting booted from this forum I have a very good name for people like you. I am sorry you can’t engage in an online conversation without losing your cool and becoming no better than the politicians we witnessed during the Vice Presidential Debate. They resorted to personal attacks, false assumptions, and snide remarks. It was disgusting to see men of such stature drop to that level, and I must say that it is no better when you do it.

Thank you (others) for the help.

Chris

28

As for you, this is the reason most people don’t like Objectivism. You couldn’t just reply your point without some insulting or cynical remark. You are condescending and unjustly so. Truthfully, if i could swear without getting booted from this forum I have a very good name for people like you. I am sorry you can’t engage in an online conversation without losing your cool and becoming no better than the politicians we witnessed during the Vice Presidential Debate. They resorted to personal attacks, false assumptions, and snide remarks. It was disgusting to see men of such stature drop to that level, and I must say that it is no better when you do it.

Thank you (others) for the help.

Chris

I always resort to insults after one ignores logical arguments. The implication is given that that is all you can respond to. I was fully justified in smearing your face in whatever I wanted to. You were answered thoroughly about induction in two seperate threads by several people, and you keep spewing the same argument. And hey, I’m sorry you have no ability to reason. I’ll be certain to ignore anything from you here on out.

29

Ability to make mistakes doesn’t mean one has no ability to reason. And, apparently what Nimble needed was not a refutation in the context of logic, but in the context of history of logic and of philosophy. Sometimes we argue for an argument X, but a whole bunch of people provide us an answer ~X, something really close to what we meant, but not exactly. If this happens, we still feel inside like our full argument has not been addressed, and still maintain the correctness of our position; there’s nothing terribly immoral here, just the way human psychology works. I tried an angle of argument with Nimble that was different from what everyone said, and apparently it worked, appearing to be exactly the situation I just described. Please don’t get nasty and abusive, especially given the fact that he has stepped back and said he would review his opinions.

PS Notice that I wasn’t extremely kind with Nimble either, because I was also pretty frustrated with his arguments. I too was condescending toward him, but not in order to make him leave the board, but sort of to smack him on the head and shake him up enough to rethink his views. Similar action, very different motives.

30

I wasn’t trying to get him to leave. But, when I spend time copying down text for him from Aristotle’s Organon, and various other sources and hear no response but a restatement of the problem as if I and everyone else have said nothing, I get pissed.

He (three times now) could only pick up on the jibes of my third post but yet again the logic part has flown over his head. I have no time to waste for one that will not even consider the opinion of Aristotle. To fire with ya!

Besides, you can tell by his response to me that he is a big cry baby: “If I wouldn’t get booted off for cursing…waaa!” I could see a little kid with diapers about to fill.

31

Now let me offer a ray of hope. So-called “deductive logic” is typically understood to be FOP logic like they teach in university-level Logic 101: that’s the stuff I’m talking about, which spends too much time going essentially nowhere.

That’s exactly how I’m thinking about the logic class I’m currently taking. It’s telling me nothing about the world.

32

That’s exactly how I’m thinking about the logic class I’m currently taking.  It’s telling me nothing about the world.

I don’t have a concrete suggestion, by way of hope-ray, but let me suggest just accepting the class for what it is. It doesn’t tell you about how to reason, it doesn’t tell you about truth – but if you can do it, you will have exhibited a useful bit of intellectual discipline; and you can’t understand real logic without understanding at least the basics of FOP logic. It’s unfortunate that there (probably) isn’t much if any integration of methods of reasoning into your class, but I don’t want you to think that formal logic classes are totally useless. You could learn it in about 3 weeks, and move on.