Why still no science of logic?

This one won't either. It's about a review of two views of the general mental model of reasoning.

Abstract - This chapter considers the two main approaches to deductive thinking: theories based on formal rules of inference postulate that deduction is a syntactic process akin to a logical proof; the mental model theory postulates that it is a semantic process akin to the search for counterexamples. Experimental evidence bears out the predictions of the model theory: the more models needed for a deduction, the harder it is; erroneous conclusions are consistent with the premises; and ^general knowledge affects the process of search. Recent neurological evidence bears out, as the model theory predicts, a significant involvement of the right hemisphere in reasoning.​

So, apparently it took me 37 minutes to make sure none of your links even talked about what you claimed they did. Are you sure English is a language you know?
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Britannica link you posted only presents two opposing views in the Cognitive Sciences as to the best way to investigate how the brain produces reasoning.
Contrary to your claim, there is nothing there on any work on a formal model of deductive logic.
EB

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a recent freely-downloadable 180 page text on precisely this subject, from the rather extraordinary Frontiersin website

https://www.frontiersin.org/researc...nitive-neuroscience-and-theories-of-reasoning

These people have hundreds (even thousands) of free science e-books on current research topics, consisting of collected articles from their journals, that can be downloaded at no cost in pdf or epub formats. Click where it says 'all stages' and when the drop-down menu appears, click on 'e-book available'. You can narrow the scope of the search by choosing the journal whose articles you are interested in on the left.

https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics

One of the papers in 'The Reasoning Brain' book above is entitled, "Syllogisms Delivered in an Angry Voice Lead to Improved Performance and Engagement of a Different Neural System Compared to Neutral Voice". So... maybe there's method to Speakpigeon's madness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your link certainly doesn't suggest that cognitives scientists work on a formal model of deductive logic.
So, why do you claim my premise false?

I think it's clear enough as it is. Read my reply to other posters if you wan't more.

You are confusing my notion of investigating the empirical fact of logic as objective performance of humans and capacity of the brain with the metaphysical question of the justification of the logical validity of logic.

That may be what they do but there's no good reason not do what I suggest.

Yeah. Sure.
EB

 

Apparently no one has a clear idea of what logic is. If so how can any speculation about logic be attributed or gleaned from humans.

Humans want to know what logic looks like, so we are going to look at humans to find and identify logic? Should we not start with finding objective logic in the universe before we start looking for subjective logic in humans?

If we want to see logic in (slow) action, we should begin with studying the slime mold. No brain, pure logic.

 

Thanks for the link, sounds an interesting website...

What I found:

Extract - Despite the centrality of rationality to our identity as a species (let alone the scientific endeavour), and the fact that it has been studied for several millennia, the present state of our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying logical reasoning remains highly fragmented. For example, a recent review concluded that none of the extant (12!) theories provide an adequate account (Khemlani & Johnson- Laird, 2011), while other authors argue that we are on the brink of a paradigm change, where the old binary logic framework will be washed away and replaced by more modern (and correct) probabilistic and Bayesian approaches (see for example Elqayam & Over, 2012; Oaksford & Chater, 2009; Over, 2009).​

That's all they have on deduction in the cognitive sciences and that broadly confirms my point.
EB

 

Yeah, well, first justify to my satisfaction your earlier claim that I made a "false" inference.
EB

 

Why? You can read. Go back to the posts where you insulted about three people at the same time.

 

No, the cognitive scientists are producing formal models of real-life empirically-observed reasoning. The logicians themselves are already producing the formal models of deductive reasoning in natural language. (What do you think that formal logic is?)

So how does it progress from empirical to formal?

First off, logic is of interest to the philosopher (as opposed to the mathematician) as the study of reasoning (whether human or in the abstract, applicable to any cognizer whether animals, space-aliens and AIs). This begins with informal logic addressing the kind of reasoning expressed in natural language. That's empirical by its nature since it attends to the rhetoric that people actually use.

In the hands of the formal logicians, this natural logic is formalized into formal languages, deductive systems, and model-theoretic semantics. These are mathematical objects of mathematical interest. The precise relationship of formal logic to the logic of natural language rhetoric isn't always crystal clear. One view is that formal logic is a model of natural language reasoning. (What you say you are seeking.) But it's more than that, since it seems to include mathematical ideas of logical necessity and formal consistency that aren't always present in natural rhetoric.

But having said that, formal logic is typically weaker than natural language logic. So much of the work in mid and late 20th century logic has involved the development of extensions to classical logic intended to capture aspects of natural language reasoning that traditional logic didn't really address. Things like time and tense, belief and knowledge, precision and ambiguity, probabilities and likelihoods, moral values, necessity and possibility, and more. So logic has spent the last couple of generations making logic more congruent with reasoning expressed in natural language. That's illustrated by the appearance of a variety of modal logics, many valued and fuzzy logics, tense logics, epistemic and doxastic logics, deontic logics, probabilistic logics, relevance logics, paraconsistent logics and many others. There's your empirical aspect right there.

But the empirical side is more complicated than that, since how we talk in natural language isn't always how we really think. The development of artificial intelligence made that clear, when how we say we reason didn't help a whole lot in programming a robot to do the same tasks. So cognitive psychology appeared, studying cognizers (human, animal or AI) solving particular real-life tasks. What are they doing? How is the task broken down into sub-tasks? Then the problem solving strategies are typically formalized, often in computer programs.

Because it looks to me that all the aspects of what you are seeking are already there. There's empirical study of real life instances of reasoning, both in natural language and on the hoof, out in the field. Then there's attempts to elucidate the logic seemingly implicit in these instances, ultimately leading to formalization in models, to systems of mathematical logic and/or to computer algorithms.

If this is somehow insufficient, why? What else do you want? What do you propose that psychologists, philosophers and logicians do instead?

 

Semantically.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have to wonder why SpeakPigeon posts here. He regularly posts questions, then when his ego is not sufficiently stroked, ends up telling people who reply to him how superior his intellect is to theirs. "Your comments have invariably zero value . . .you posted but didn't read properly . . .I'm not sure about what language you speak."

One wonders why he would post pseudoscience to a science forum and then become irate when it is discussed. Surely there is a forum somewhere that will stroke his ego to his satisfaction, and not expose him to the rigors and impediments of science.

 

can only 'like' a post once

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

this doesn't sound like it reads correctly.

the inference on a new subject adjective taking ownership of the terms of the primary point without there being a 'full stop' of semi colon
maybe a semi colon would be correct ?

literature ?

because religion
Standard religion of christianity & islam teaches that science of logic is cultist secular atheism.
this is indoctrinated into teenagers by imams & pastors and reinforced by social manipulation.

i am quite surprised you do not know this already if you do not.
the question is a good question.
the subject is sound
the ability to remove the bias from the situation is EXTREMELY difficult.
it lends its motives & processes of dynamic principal into the ID's of Religions Ego's.

my answer needs no justification like a lost teenager
it is a simple fact.

 

It's a link to information for you about the field of cognitive science - your other approach of interest, remember?

The information about formal models of deductive logic are in the Wikipedia link, the field of metalogic. You apparently did not know what the word "metalogic" means, but that is explained in the link as well.

You expressed interest in two different approaches to human employment of logic. You now have introductory links to both, from me, and even better links from others once you have some basic familiarity with these fields apparently new to you. Happy reading.

 

Wouldn't be logical not to follow up on the links provided. How deep is the interest?

 

i recall glazing the subject some 20 or soo years ago and thinking "i really should get back to this and have a proper read"
i never did.

 

For those not familiar, just a taste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic

 

I find it interesting that, using google, I can find articles about the logic of science, and, wait for it, the science of logic!

Logical nonsense.

 

Why?