Why still no science of logic?

[Speakpigeon]

As for the rules of logic, I can see how you could make an argument that those rules are empirical too, to a large extent, because they seem to reflect how things operate in the observed world.

Zero understanding again.
The question isn't about the genesis of logic as performance of humans and capacity of the brain.
The question is that given that logic is itself an empirical fact, something we can observe people doing, why it is there is no empirical science of it. There is a science of the human mind, psychology. There is a science of human reasoning, the cognitive sciences, and yet, as of today and as far as I know, there's no scientist working on a formal model of deductive logic. Why is that?
EB

 

[Write4U]

Mathematicians are not empirical scientists. If did a thread on that here and elsewhere and most people agreed it's not an empirical science. And this is definitely the general view. And mathematicians themselves have insisted for at least the last 200 years that they should not think of mathematics as being true or false of the physical world.
EB

And other mathematicians maintain that mathematics is all there is...... be balanced please.

In fact, cosmologists are empirical mathematicians. All cosmology is theory until tested and verified that the maths are valid. TheHiggs boson was mathematically predicted before it was produced, using pure mathematics.

Mathematics are valid as a property of the universe. Else we could not use "applied mathematics" for landing a rover on Mars.

 

[Write4U]

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.

What people understand and believe is not logical empiricism. The premise may be false and then the logic may be structurally true but empirically false.

False premise - Wikipedia
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

What people understand and believe is not logical empiricism. The premise may be false and then the logic may be structurally true but empirically false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Irrelevant.
Your understanding of what people say is near zero, you know?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And other mathematicians maintain that mathematics is all there is...... be balanced please.

Yeah, you're right.
Many people say God exists. Please be balanced.
EB

 

[billvon]

Why no science of logic?

Because logic is a formal method for reasoning, using agreed-upon principles to determine validity. Logic is inherently self-consistent, and indeed is one of the underpinnings of science. Using science to study logic would be like using a ruler to study the concept of length.

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

Women's fashion? Rappers? The popularity of Kim Kardashian?

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

There is plenty of _study_ of logic. It's just not a field amenable to the scientific method of study.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I personally want to see a science of math.

 

[Write4U]

Yeah, you're right.
Many people say God exists. Please be balanced.
EB

There is a difference . Physics, Cosmology, and Mathematics are sciences. Religion is a belief.

 

[Write4U]

I personally want to see a science of math.

This may be of interest.

Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do. It is the building block for everything in our daily lives, including mobile devices, architecture (ancient and modern), art, money, engineering, and even sports.Aug 15, 2013
What is Mathematics? - Live Science

Math and the Greeks
The study of math within early civilizations was the building blocks for the math of the Greeks, who developed the model of abstract mathematics through geometry. Greece, with its incredible architecture and complex system of government, was the model of mathematic achievement until modern times. Greek mathematicians were divided into several schools:

The Ionian School, founded by Thales, who is often credited for having given the first deductive proofs and developing five basic theorems in plane geometry.

The Pythagorean School, founded by Pythagoras, who studied proportion, plane and solid geometry, and number theory.

The Eleatic School, which included Zeno of Elea, famous for his four paradoxes.

The Sophist School, which is credited for offering higher education in the advanced Greek cities. Sophists provided instruction on public debate using abstract reasoning.

The Platonic School, founded by Plato, who encouraged research in mathematics in a setting much like a modern university.

The School of Eudoxus, founded by Eudoxus, who developed the theory of proportion and magnitude and produced many theorems in plane geometry

The School of Aristotle, also known as the Lyceum, was founded by Aristotle and followed the Platonic school

https://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html

 

[Write4U]

Irrelevant.
Your understanding of what people say is near zero, you know?
EB

Well, ain't that a logical shame..please pray for me............

 

[billvon]

I personally want to see a science of math.

How about a math of science? A science of science?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

How about a math of science? A science of science?

Those both sound very logical to me.

 

[Write4U]

On second thought Speakpigeon,
In your haste to display your superior intellect, you just committed a logical fallacy.

Speakpigeon said,
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.

Yet you accuse me that I have zero understanding of something that has not been said and that I am not able to understand subtexts........ spooky intellectual implications.....brrrrrr.

Your understanding of what people say is near zero, you know?

Are you calling me an idiot or are you posting logically false statements?..........

 

[Write4U]

Those both sound very logical to me.

Mathematical value symbols and equations are the letters and words in the language of universal science.

 

[James R]

Speakpigeon:

Again you didn't understand what I said.

It's hardly my fault if you don't write clearly enough to be unambiguous in what you're saying. I'm trying to save a little time by filling in the gaps between what you said and what you might possibly have meant.

The point isn't about whether Obama being a politician is an empirical fact or not.

I didn't say it was. What I said was that is the only empirical fact in play in the reasoning process at that moment in time. But now, with the benefit of a little more input from you, it looks as if you weren't quite talking about that.

I'll repeat and highlight the bit you didn't understand too good:
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.

Okay, let's try again.

You're saying that having worked out that Obama is a politician, then people hearing "all politicians are liars" demonstrably are able to deduce that the claim is being made that Obama is a liar, by implication. That is, you're saying that people are empirically able to self-generate syllogisms that are applicable to situations at hand, thereby forming new conclusions from information that is already available. You're also saying that this is a largely "automatic" process that people do "without even realising" they are doing it.

In short, you're just making the obvious statement that people are observed to reason logically about certain things. I wouldn't have thought that was a very earth-shattering observation; it seems obvious to me. But at least we got there in the end - and only 50 posts into the thread.

So ... speculation: you're looking for an empirical science that studies how people reason logically? You're aware that the cognitive sciences already study this, it seems. But you think that the "missing piece" is a "formal model of deductive logic", whatever that means in the context of human cognitive behaviour.

Without knowing why you think this is missing, or what you think might be an outline for your formal model, there's little more to discuss at this point in the thread. I guess I'll wait to see whether, having stated the obvious, you have anything interesting to say on your topic.

 

[iceaura]

But you think that the "missing piece" is a "formal model of deductive logic",

That we have, of course - more than one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic

The question is that given that logic is itself an empirical fact, something we can observe people doing, why it is there is no empirical science of it. There is a science of the human mind, psychology. There is a science of human reasoning, the cognitive sciences, and yet, as of today and as far as I know, there's no scientist working on a formal model of deductive logic.

There is a great deal of empirical scientific research into human reasoning, of which what lends itself to formulation as a logic would be a part.
There are several formal models of deductive logic, as linked - they formally model that aspect of what empirical research into human reasoning observes, as well as other possible logics not observed.
Nothing appears to be missing, except what remains to be discovered and/or formally modeled - a rich field of unknowns, to be sure, but not one barren of researchers or modelers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because logic is a formal method for reasoning

Derail.
You're talking of logic as "a formal method of reasoning". I'm not, as indeed clearly specified in my first post: "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'm uncertain as to why it is so hard for you guys to just read the bloody question. Well, yeah, maybe reading isn't quite enough.
Learn your English, Sir. 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.
Still, you derail if you want to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is a difference . Physics, Cosmology, and Mathematics are sciences. Religion is a belief.

Sure, there is a difference, but none as to your initial remark. Please be balanced.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

you just committed a logical fallacy.

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.

Are you calling me an idiot or are you posting logically false statements?

You had a brain wave?
Still, please explain what you mean. That's sounds very interesting and accusing people without explaining the accusation makes you look like a slanderer.
Of course, I don't say in the bit you quoted that this is a valid implication. I call it an empirical fact. That's something that can be observed and it's something that linguists are very familiar with. So, where is the "logically false statement"?
If you can at all explain yourself.
EB

 

[Beer w/Straw]

logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings,

Of which I briefly touched upon in post No. 3 of this thread, only omitting the word "neuroscience".

I answered your question even before you clarified it.