Logic help

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes it does.

The problem is not that RJ represents his arguments in plain language instead of a formal language. It's that it's possible to come out with boneheaded arguments what ever method one uses.

Originally posted by OdBod
Fixed unquestioning religious belief in the existence of a god clearly breaks this first rule then.

Originally posted by josephw
"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.”

—Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"

"Fixed unquestioning religious belief in the existence of a god clearly breaks this first rule then."

I don't think that the first rule of inquiry, "do not block the way of inquiry", can be made to mean that there are no absolute truths by which we make inquiry into questions of which we don't know the absolute truth about.

In my opinion the first rule of logic is, "if it's not true, it's not logical."

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by josephw
"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.” ...[text shortened]... truth about.

In my opinion the first rule of logic is, "if it's not true, it's not logical."

What do you mean by true?

Originally posted by DeepThought
What do you mean by true?

Real.

What is real about what exists. That which never changes. Pure reality.

Originally posted by josephw
Real.

What is real about what exists. That which never changes. Pure reality.

Change is the primary idea behind the theory of evolution. Sometimes evolutionists define evolution as change.

Originally posted by josephw
Real.

What is real about what exists. That which never changes. Pure reality.

By real you mean actually exists, as opposed to in the imagination? There's a form of logic called free logic. In it not all the objects are required to exist. Ideally one would be able to demonstrate the existence or otherwise of objects using it. The problem is that the quantifiers can only range over the actually existing objects, as a result the only objects in it that can be proved to exist are ones that exist by assumption anyway.

Originally posted by DeepThought
By real you mean actually exists, as opposed to in the imagination? There's a form of logic called free logic. In it not all the objects are required to exist. Ideally one would be able to demonstrate the existence or otherwise of objects using it. The problem is that the quantifiers can only range over the actually existing objects, as a result the only objects in it that can be proved to exist are ones that exist by assumption anyway.

Aother name for it is "boneheaded" logic. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Change is the primary idea behind the theory of evolution. Sometimes evolutionists define evolution as change.

So you figure your so-called god watched over the Earth, every atom and so forth, deciding it was time to get rid of Pterdactyls, change each dinosaur from one kind to another, like an orchestra conductor leading a piece of music, changing each one to suit some plan forever unknowable by mankind and then getting totally ticked off sometimes, throwing down asteroids at Earth which created craters a hundred miles wide then sped up the erosion process to cover up said craters maybe out of a sense of guilt and then went back to redesigning animals and eventually took out the dinosaur line and started mammals up the line, changing them from kind to kind, but making the primates just look like mankind to throw us off, but making human kind, all one type, neadnerthals, Cro-magnon, Australiapithicus, and all those, all one kind, then done with his experimenting? Is that about it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure your so-called god watched over the Earth, every atom and so forth, deciding it was time to get rid of Pterdactyls, change each dinosaur from one kind to another, like an orchestra conductor leading a piece of music, changing each one to suit some plan forever unknowable by mankind and then getting totally ticked off sometimes, throwing down a ...[text shortened]... traliapithicus, and all those, all one kind, then done with his experimenting? Is that about it?

No. You should read the Holy Bible to find out about it. However, you can't learn without believing, so take off your atheists glasses.

Originally posted by DeepThought
By real you mean actually exists, as opposed to in the imagination? There's a form of logic called free logic. In it not all the objects are required to exist. Ideally one would be able to demonstrate the existence or otherwise of objects using it. The problem is that the quantifiers can only range over the actually existing objects, as a result the only objects in it that can be proved to exist are ones that exist by assumption anyway.

I thought of this question. I would like to hear your thoughts.

What is the goal of logic?

Originally posted by josephw
I thought of this question. I would like to hear your thoughts.

What is the goal of logic?

Who said logic had a goal?
Why anthropomorphise a field of study?

You may as well ask what is the goal of topology or algebra or ...

Originally posted by josephw
I thought of this question. I would like to hear your thoughts.

What is the goal of logic?

Now that is a good question.

Romans 12:1 ? ("reasonable service" ) ?

Originally posted by josephw
I thought of this question. I would like to hear your thoughts.

What is the goal of logic?

I'm not sure what you mean by goal? Your question seems to assume teleology. The purpose of logic is to make argumentation rigorous, to find what can properly be deduced from a set of premises. It can show that a conclusion does not follow from its premises and it can show that a collection of premises are mutually contradictory. It cannot in itself tell us the truth, since that relies on the correctness of the premises.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not sure what you mean by goal? Your question seems to assume teleology. The purpose of logic is to make argumentation rigorous, to find what can properly be deduced from a set of premises. It can show that a conclusion does not follow from its premises and it can show that a collection of premises are mutually contradictory. It cannot in itself tell us the truth, since that relies on the correctness of the premises.

So the goal of logic must be to convince someone of the correctness of your argument. If that is the goal, then what does it matter if one can get away with using incorrect premises?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So the goal of logic must be to convince someone of the correctness of your argument. If that is the goal, then what does it matter if one can get away with using incorrect premises?

It would mean the other dude doesn't know logic principles and it would be like you beating a 6 year old at chess and then gloating about how great you are.