Why still no science of logic?

No Sir. It took you 50 posts to get there.
What should be a straightforward conversation about a simple point becomes a protracted argument without any end in sight.
Your comments have invariably zero value and I have better things to do than put you straight. Please, just ignore me from now on.
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.
As Wiki says in the link you posted but didn't read properly, "The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages". Formal languages. See?
Me, I'm not interested in the study of formal languages. Instead, I'm asking for a scientific investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
I hope you understand the difference.

What appears to be missing is understanding of what Wiki says here.
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess I'm done here.
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just exposed you for the illogical slanderer you are. You don't get to use your words to accuse me.

I just did, but apparently it was to obtuse for your keen logical mind.

 

OK. That's not what logic is, though. So to avoid confusion, I'll refer to it as EBLogic.

Yes, I am all for the scientific study of EBLogic, and I think you should spearhead it. Lots of similar studies have been done on the cognitive performance of people, both inherent and learned. So you won't be starting from zero.

 

LOL, so you can make any allegation about me, refuse to explain yourself, and get away with it.
Whoa. Human depravity knows no bound...
EB

 

Yeah, as in... Dictionaries variously define logic in this sense, the sense I'm using here, as "valid reasoning", "force or effectiveness in argument or dispute", "reasoned and reasonable judgement" etc.
Wait, I already said that. Did you miss it by any chance?!
I'm not sure about what language you speak. Billvon?
EB

 

English - which unfortunately is sometimes rare here.

 

Ahhhhh...., E-Blogical processes, a new form of empirical logic .........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I explained in great detail. Seems you are unable to follow the logic.
Sorry, can't help you with that problem.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look Speakpigeon, if you insist in throwing out ad hominems (at everybody) , I'll have to continue to put you in your place.
If you want to act like a thug, you'll be treated like a thug. That is a logical progression.

 

LOL

 

No relevant answer yet, so maybe time to remind us of what the question is...

Why no science of logic?

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?

Thank you to try and justify your answer.
EB

 

Logic is a formal language, in that context, and a (the) major object of metalogical study.
That's why the field is called "metalogic", dumbass, and it includes the study of specifically deductive logics, as you requested - and as the link makes clear.

That too? Ok: Cognitive science. It exists. https://www.britannica.com/science/cognitive-science Welcome to the field - opportunities abound, as new capabilities make possible advances in this very complex and difficult field of research.

 

Yeah, as I said, the study of a formal language, not the study of logic as a capacity of the human brain.

I don't think so but, please, prove me wrong. Produce references to publicly available scientific work done in Cognitive Sciences on formal methods purporting to be models of deductive logic as a capacity of the human brain.
Please, prove me wrong.
EB

 

[QUOTE="Speakpigeon, post: 3585618, member: 287911"I don't think so but, please, prove me wrong. Produce references to publicly available scientific work done in Cognitive Sciences on formal methods purporting to be models of deductive logic as a capacity of the human brain.[/QUOTE]

Sure.

Cognitive and AI models of reasoning - "cognitive neuroscience studies of reasoning have two general implications for cognitive theories of deduction."
https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/pdf/S1364-6613(98)01122-X.pdf

New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/11/10/954/280029

Deductive reasoning and the new paradigm
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00101/full

Mental models, deductive reasoning and the brain
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3238/fa0ae160731ceb96cf168b0d7161b48b3356.pdf

 

You said this:

I quoted that, and then I posted the link for you, to metalogical studies - a field in which people are working on, among other related things, formal models of deductive logic. Exactly as you requested.

In response, you demonstrated that you don't know what a formal language is, and cannot read a Wikipedia link with comprehension - which means you had no idea what this thread you started was going to be about.

 

Thanks but that's not going to prove me wrong.
Here is the abstract:

Although relatively few in number, cognitive neuroscience studies of reasoning have two general implications for cognitive theories of deduction. First, an important distinction among these theories is whether they focus on the effect of personally relevant content on the processes and representations underlying deductive reasoning. Evidence is reviewed indicating that there is a neuroanatomical basis for both content-independent and content-dependent theories of deduction. Clinical and neuroimaging studies appear to show that content-independent reasoning is mediated by the left hemisphere, whereas content-dependent reasoning is mediated by regions in the right hemisphere and the bilateral ventromedial frontal cortex. In normal subjects, reasoning is likely to be based on contributions from both hemispheres. Second, clinical evidence indicates that the visuospatial processes used in deductive reasoning are mediated by the posterior areas of the left hemisphere, and that verbal and visuospatial reasoning representations overlap at the neuroanatomical level. This finding weighs against the claims of mental-model theory that deduction involves a significant nonverbal component. Further investigation, particularly with contemporary neuroimaging methods, is needed to test these preliminary conclusions.​

Can't see any talk of a formal model of deductive logic in there.
This is in fact the expected kind of run-of-the-mill study of the neurobiological basis of logic. Not what I'm asking for.
EB

 

Your question seems to implicitly contain a false premise. Namely that there isn't any "science" of logic. I think that there is.

First, if we interpret "science" to mean an organized body of knowledge, then the science of logic would seem to refer to what professional logicians spend their time doing and their work-product.

Second, if we interpret "science of logic" to mean "a scientific investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain" (your words), then cognitive psychology would seem to be what you should be referring to.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/

If that doesn't satisfy you, and I expect that it won't (and that you will be quite insulting about it), perhaps you should try to explain why cognitive science falls short of whatever it is that you are seeking. It might help if you tried to achieve more clarity about what that is.

Perhaps part of your problem is that scientific investigation of anything is going to presuppose logic. (Isn't 'logical' part of what 'science' implies?) So wouldn't a scientific (hence logical) attempt to explain logic be circular by its nature?

So cognitive studies typically concentrate instead on trying to understand and formalize particular problem solving tasks that humans, animals and AIs are faced with, not with investigating 'logic' as a whole.

There is a considerable literature on the psychology of inference, syllogisms and logical conditionals though.

 

This one won't either. Same thing.

Abstract: Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ‘set’, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.​

Still, this agrees with my personal experience that deductive logic "is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic".
Science is catching up.
EB

 

This one won't either. It is about "the new paradigm", which argues emphatically against the notion that "rationality is about following the rules of logic".

Extract: It is argued that recent brain imaging research on deductive reasoning—implementational level—has largely ignored the new paradigm in reasoning—computational level (Over, 2009). Consequently, recent imaging results are reviewed with the focus on how they relate to the new paradigm.​

EB