Re: Relativism: pro and con

Hi Albert:

You: "The opinions of what logic is and is not is as varied as the
individuals trying to define it."

I have read, and re-read your posted quotes on the "Rival conceptions of
logic" and hardly see any variance in the fundamentals. Are you asserting
that Plato and Aristotle would disagree as to what is or is not logical? Or
that Kant changed important rules of logic and reason that would change the
meaning of literary, legal, mathematical or scientific understanding?

Obviously over the years refinements have improved all human thought, but I
hardly think that could be used as a reason to discredit it. Just because
we used to be mistaken does not mean we are always mistaken.

We can argue about whether gravity or the sun are more important to human
life, or whether logic or reason are more fundamental, but the point is we
need it all. These tools were given to us and we need to use them to make
things better for everyone.

If you have a question about what logic should be in any given situation I
will give my opinion for you, Albert. But to define logic? I would just
quote a googled dictionary: "1. The study of the principles of reasoning,
especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their
content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning."

Hope this helps. --Kent

"albert" <ajv2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12aic64ritk3k72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's useful to peruse the Wiki on "Logic". Low it's as clear as mud. The
opinions of what logic is and is not is as varied as the individuals
trying to define it.

Rival conceptions of logic

Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation.
The conception of logic as the study of argument is historically
fundamental, and was how the founders of distinct traditions of logic,
namely Plato, Aristotle, Mozi and Aksapada Gautama, conceived of logic.
Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those
arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for
example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of logic that it does
not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the
theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can
be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are
involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other
representations (Hofweber 2004).

By contrast Immanuel Kant introduced an alternative idea as to what logic
is. He argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgement,
an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege's logical and philosophical work, where
thought (German: Gedanke) is substituted for judgement (German: Urteil).
On this conception, the valid inferences of logic follow from the
structural features of judgements or thoughts.

A third view of logic arises from the idea that logic is more fundamental
than reason, and so that logic is the science of states of affairs
(German: Sachverhalt) in general. Barry Smith locates Franz Brentano as
the source for this idea, an idea he claims reaches its fullest
development in the work of Adolf Reinach (Smith 1989). This view of logic
appears radically distinct from the first: on this conception logic has no
essential connection with argument, and the study of fallacies and
paradoxes no longer appears essential to the discipline.

Occasionally one encounters a fourth view as to what logic is about: it is
a purely formal manipulation of symbols according to some prescribed
rules. This conception can be criticized on the grounds that the
manipulation of just any formal system is usually not regarded as logic.
Such accounts normally omit an explanation of what it is about certain
formal systems that makes them systems of logic.

This kind of begs the question how do you define logic Kent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

--Albert


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Raw food for pets?
    ... When you say something, and people read it, they are likely to form opinions, make assessments, or even simply question when someone comes up with something so incredibly hypocritical. ... Can't imagine why their posts would have been of any interest to you either, ... Yes, for some reason or reasons still unknown to me, ... I do tend to warn people about her dangerous advice, when she has actually *given* dangerous advice, though I doubt that would have come up with you since she wasn't giving you advice. ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.health)
  • Re: Sizes of Integer Types
    ... divide the world into teams, such that if I agree with X about Y, then it is assumed by others that all of my opinions about Y are the same as X's opinions about Y. But this is simply not the case, and there is no reason why it should be. ... Especially the port C99 drafts which are effectively the current standard because they are the published standard with the TCs applied. ... IMHO a lot of the time one wants a type with a minimum range but wants it as fast as possible. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Today
    ... Josh Hill wrote: ... There is simply no reason that a more normal human being would bother ... question the citations you offer as support of your silly opinions. ... I was in short order accused of lying about any number ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Ann, Laurie, and all the other women here, are rapists
    ... You can't have an argument without opinions. ... Uh, you can't prove anything, ever, with reason and everyday commonly ... everyday commonly accessible experiences. ... You seem to be driven by emotion, ...
    (talk.rape)
  • Re: URGENT - Please take action now.
    ... of conception, what is present is a *single cell*. ... that could reasonably be deduced to be a conscious entity that is able ... You've not been able to give a reason for this decision despite my asking you, so I can only conclude it's an arbitrary decision. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading