Paradoxes and the Natural Man

A preview of things to come (when I have another second):

I think I agree with Strawson when he said (in "On Referring"): "Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression in ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic."

logic and life

In light of logic and the scriptures, I recall Dr. Carter (BYU logic professor) saying that The Book of Mormon authors used a different logic system than what we studied in class. Sam or Brian, do you recall something like this? I haven't heard or read anything else on this. However, I have spent some time diverting myself during a boring Sunday school lesson by translating the prophetic logic arguments into truth-functional or quantificational logic symbolic form. Then, I would either play with the proof or make truth-table to test its validity.

I agree with Brian. Set-theory, to me also, is the closest we have to how people reason. A few months ago, I read an article in some cognitive science periodical about natural set-theory. The author argued that while the ZF-Set-theory is great for mathematics, set-theory needed some modifications to better approximate how people reason. He proceeded to propose some new rules and definitions (but I can't remember them all, I'll have to go find that article).

While in formal logic we have a clear distinction between validity and soundness, I don't believe most people realize the difference between the structure of the argument (validity) and the argument's relation to reality (soundness). In normal language, people also see different logic connectors different. How many people see a disjunction as having the possibility of both disjuncts being true? Most people, I believe see is it as one or the other, but not both. Conditionals can throw people through similar loops. So often, people don't know what to do if the antecedent is false and the consequent is true; if a person does have a reply, then there is a good chance that the person will say the truth-value is false. Were the statement to be a bicondition, this would be right. Perhaps, people see exclusive-disjunctions and bi-conditionals rather than inclusive-disjunctions and conditionals.

Within all of this, I think another interesting question comes out: While Socrates saw a careful evaluation of life (through a logical dialectic) as fundamental to living well, and Plato asserted a logical ascension is necessary to reach the good, what is the purpose of logic in an everyday person's life? (Please note, I am a fan of looking for fallacies (ask Lindsay).) Outside of mathematical and philosophical discussion, does formal/symbollic logic have a role? Are we better knowing probabilities, heuristics, and inductive logic in these situations?

Logic, the Gospel and Wikis

I don't know what I'm talking about. You are all the philosophers... I am but a pathetic wanna-be engineer stuck in the Clyde. Except for propositional & predicate calculus - which are not much more than a bunch of 1s and 0s anded and ored together.

I really don't know much about the difference between classic logic and Aristotle's logic... so I can't comment much. I would think that human reasoning is based off of propositional and predicate calculus and discrete math in general. I mean, our thoughts are a bunch of statements that eventually lead to a conclusion, right? But then, I have a simple mind and may not know enough to reason a very good comment. This is true. I mean... false. No, true! Or false?

You know what would be neat? We should see if we can tie any of this stuff to the gospel. How's 2nd Nephi 2:13 for a logical argument? Or, Alma 42:16-22 (or all of 42 for that matter). I guess these examples might not follow with the current topic very well (because I still don't reason it)... But still, I'd like to see ties to the gospel in comments. I think it'd be neat (since truth is found there also).

As for the wiki idea (or forum)... I think it makes a lot of sense. I mean, the conversations will probably be divided into separate topics and might be better displayed as such (separated). But then, it's also neat to see a stream line conversation published in the blog. I think it'd probably be a good idea to stick to the blog for now since blogger is easy to use, others are used to it, and a wiki site isn't immediately available (but can be created in the nearer than later future). Cool idea though - wikis are the future. A read and writable internets.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
-John Adams

is this the best way to do this?

I think we may want to get tyler to whip up some sort of wiki or sql type system so we can have different threads going on. I don't really know what would be best, I'm just a little concerned about protocol, ettiquette, etc.

As for the logic question, I think that Kant would certainly say that the rules of logic are intrinsic to the sense manifold that filters our experience into the categories. Not that I'm a hard core Kantian, but the notion always resounded with me. I think that the linguistic underpinnings of logic are certainly somewhere in the way our brains are wired, but as Blake suggested, logic is more closely related to mathematics, which, to me, seems less intuitive and innate to the human condition.

I think that maybe, Frege Logic (with set theory and such) is what we as humans havw thus far been able to develop that most closely approximates some sort of true (Platonic if you will) logic that would actually resemble how our brains process information.

preliminary unsorted thoughts on logic

Sam, I like this topic (a lot). However before I say something, I need to sort my ideas out. There is a whole discipline of psychology devoted to this question (psychology of reasoning); however, I believe that many times they miss the point of logic. Logic is the study of structure, and most of psychology does not look at structure. In other words, I think that psychology of reasoning does well at observing manifestations of reasoning, but they have not reached the core of reasoning. Because they have not reached the core of reasoning, there are three disputing schools of thought within psychology, and each can argue their view with significant empirical evidence, as well as discount the others. (I said that I would sort my thoughts out and obviously I became too anxious; I'm still going to sort my thoughts.)

Currently, I am at a lost. I want to say "yes," but I can't. Classic logic though powerful in forming mathematical foundations, appears limiting in the world that involves possibles and necessaries, deontics (should and oughts), and other modals. However, are those washed out, weak, or misinterpreted quantifiers? If logic forms a foundation for mathematics through quantificational logic and set-theory, and mathematics is the ground physics rests, then could it also be the correct grounding of human reasoning? I need to get to bed (i.e., sort out my thoughts before I say more).

Logic

How about this for a topic: does classic logic (not Aristotle's (syllogistic), I'm talking Frege/Russell: modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, etc) truly capture the way that humans reason? Another question might be: does it capture the way we ought to reason (is it even more fundamental than human reason (lots of people don't seem to get disjunctive syllogism, or don't believe in it))? I'm at work and will opine later, but thought it might be something to get us going.

Philosophers and Engineers

Speaking of engineers, there would hardly be any if it weren't for the philosophers first. Where would the computers we're surfing be if it weren't for Descarte, Leibniz, or Turing (and many others)?

As the inventor of the Cartesian coordinate system, Descartes founded analytic geometry, that bridge between algebra and geometry crucial to the invention of calculus and analysis. Descartes's reflections on mind and mechanism began the strain of western thought that much later, impelled by the invention of the electronic computer and by the possibility of machine intelligence, blossomed into, e.g., the Turing test.
- Wikipedia

It's fun to be a part of the blog. What are we going to talk about? Anyone have a topic?

a gathering of Wiest philosophers

Indubitably, there is an abnormal quantity of philosophers in this family. At least, I think there are. Hence, it is only appropriate that we have a place to convene and discuss. The exciting part is that we each can approach the discussion with diverse backgrounds and directions. Sam, Brian, and myself have a core philosophy background, but each of us have or are pursuing different directions after the graduation. Brian went to business, Sam to law, and myself to cognitive psychology. Leisa has an immensely related field of study in comparative literature. Tyler with a self-motivated passion for philosophy from an electrical engineering background. I say we just start and carry on conversations, debates, or thoughts as they come.