Why still no science of logic?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Speakpigeon, Jun 19, 2019.

  1. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,890
    I'm not a fan of generic dictionary definitions, so I won't invoke this as an argument - but I do find it notable that the first definition I came across of 'empirical' is:

    "...based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic..."

    It's enough to request clarification of the terms and context you've used.

    So can you provide some examples of this logic of the empirical world?
     
    river likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,031
    Well, there is the study of intelligence:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/intelligence This could suggest that logic is subjective; logic is irrelevant if there's no mind to think it.
     
    river likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,427
    The problem with your proposed investigation is that objective performance has virtually nothing to do with logic. For instance I can run a program on a really slow computer and get exactly the same result running the same program on a really fast computer. That's logic.

    Performance, capability, even your proposed investigation will be based on some logic or logical framework; it will investigate itself.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,890
    SP has me on ignore because he doesn't like to have his ideas challenged.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,118
    Because logic isn't empirical.

    So you really mean a science that studies what human beings do with logic. We already have a number of scientific sub-disciplines for that.

    A formal system is, once gain, not empirical. It is a construct. And here, you're going a step further even than that, into meta-construct.

    How is logic an aspect of the empirical world?

    It seems to me that we already have accurate formal models of logic that work just fine.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019
    exchemist likes this.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,274
    How do I get him to put me on ignore? If I post enough science, would that do it?
     
    DaveC426913 and exchemist like this.
  11. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,566
    Your question OP kind of reminds me of a question I've run across recently - can logic be taught or are we born with it?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,784
    Interesting...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I call that quasi-intelligent.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic
     
  13. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    OK, as usual, nothing relevant.
    Thanks, guys.
    EB
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,422
    By what criteria of relevance? James and Dave have given what seems to me a sound answer, pointing out that logic is not empirical. If you find that answer unsatisfactory, perhaps you could explain why.
     
  15. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    Example of irrelevant answer:
    Logic of "the empirical world"?! What does that mean?
    I'm talking of logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".
    Address that or be irrelevant, as usual.
    EB
     
  16. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    Perhaps these people could justify their answers... Apparently, they're not motivated to do that. Too bad. Any idiot can spout "logic is not empirical". Prove you understand whatever you're saying by arguing your point.
    OK, I'll try to address some of the answers, but it's not going to be pretty.
    EB
     
  17. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    Of course it is. Aristotle produced his syllogistic by generalising from his observation of the kind of arguments used in the rhetoric of the time, in particular enthymemes.

    Example... Suppose some folks are talking about Obama and after a while one of them say, "Well, anyway, politicians are all liars". And that's it. And it is an empirical fact that the people present, even idiots, will understand the subtext of that, without even having to think about it. They will understand something that has not been said. Without even realising they are making a syllogistic inference from partial premises, i.e. an enthymeme.

    And that's an objective fact.

    So, yes, logic is an empirical fact. But I suddenly realise you didn't even understand what you commented on. Logic isn't empirical? That says it all. I guess you mean we won't decide what logic is by observing the sky at night or the little atoms. Sure, but logic is a manifest capability and an objective performance of human beings, and as such you can observe that, as Aristotle did.

    No. I said clearly: 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 didn't suggest a science of logic as "a formal system". I'm talking of logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings". The formal model comes as a result of the investigation of that, investigation that would try "to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational".

    Logic as "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".

    No, they don't work fine. First order approximation at best.Toy logic. And no wonder since mathematical logic isn't a scientific discipline. Mathematicians haven't got the right frame of mind. They're not empirically motivated.

    If mathematical logic "worked fine", it would have to be because it would be an accurate model of some empirical phenomenon, something I think you've just denied.

    Anyway, it's clear you didn't understand the question and that you wouldn't know the answer.
    EB
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,422
    OK so your explanation of why you find James's answer unsatisfactory is that any idiot can say logic is not empirical. I suppose that is true, but does one have necessarily to be an idiot to say it?
     
  19. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    I provided a detailed answer of why it's empirical and that's all you take from it?!
    OK, bye.
    EB
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,422
    But not in reply to me and posted after I had responded. So much for logic.

    But as usual you are proving to be too much of a pain the arse to be worth having a discussion with. So yes, bye indeed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    James R likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,784
    There is science of Logic.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic

    Seems to me that Logic is an inherent potential of universal information processing. It determines how patterns become expressed in an orderly manner.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,890
    You've asked a question that makes an ambiguous (and as yet unfounded) assertion. You don't get to decide that clarification of your own assertion is irrelevant.

    That's what I'm asking you. They're your words.
    The subject of this sentence is 'logic'.

    So, the question is: how does logic apply to the empirical (observed) world. They're essentially opposites.

    Answer the question.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,427
    And once again, you seem to be in search of some kind of holy grail. Pity you seem to have no real idea what it's supposed to look like.

    Your statement appears to have little relevance to the subject of logic. Logic isn't a physical thing, you can't measure logic, so how can you say it "performs"?
    Mathematics is not an empirical science. Logic functions just fine with non-physical, or even non-rational objects.

    Where is the empirical stuff in: IF all A are B THEN not C . . . ? A,B, and C aren't defined but there is still a logical statement. It doesn't say a lot, but that doesn't change anything about the LOGIC, right?
    But most of all the logic says nothing about A B and C being empirical, there is no logical requirement, no rule of logic, which says they have to be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page