Why still no science of logic?

[arfa brane]

We all have access to the same basic information. We all have the same kind of brain. The understanding that human beings have a deductive logic capability dates back at least to Aristotle.

I think SP's posts are contradictory. This understanding, in his view, isn't a science or a theory.
Then we get this:

All the major thinkers in the intervening time have pondered the question, with various perspectives, but they all have spent time on it and written on it. Mathematicians themselves in the 19th started out thinking in the terms I have outlined. The title Boole chose for his book starts with the words "The Laws of Thought". Frege also thought in terms of logic as a performance of human beings. He meant to develop a method of logic adapted for mathematics but one that would be a formalisation of the mathematicians' logical thought, and, presumably, mathematicians have the same basic logical capability as any other human being in good health. So, no, I don't buy that I needed to provide any detail.

"the question" hasn't been answered since Aristotle, apparently, this is obvious and something we can all, erm, deduce for ourselves.

So for some unspecified reason we can disqualify everything since Aristotle from being a science of logic. And we have to exclude Aristotle too because he didn't answer "the question".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Empiricism is the idea that our knowledge is somehow based upon or justified by experience. And 'experience' is typically interpreted to mean the traditional five senses. So what kind of "empirical" investigations do you propose that your logicologists, your "empirical scientists" of deductive logic, conduct? Can deductive logic be directly observed with the senses? Can laboratory experiments be conducted on it?
So once again, in your view, what is a "proper scientific investigation of it"? What would a logicologist need to do in order to not be "sloppy" and to be proceeding "properly"? What kind of investigations do you imagine them conducting? If it's supposed to be empirical, the logicologists would presumably be observing something with their senses, but what?
Which suggests that, contrary to your denial up above, you do have an idea in mind of what you consider the "proper thing" for them to be doing would be.

I guess I already said all there is to say on that point and it was right in my first post.
Here is the "research program":

investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

And here I specify the thing to be investigated:

logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings

What's not empirical there?

Except that intelligent human (or animal) behavior can be observed. (That's the province of the psychologists.) Problem-solving strategies can be abstracted from the observed physical and (in the case of the humans) verbal behavior. Then those strategies can sometimes be modeled in logical systems or in computer algorithms.
(You've already dismissed cognitive science observing animal and human problem solving behavior.)

No, I absolutely didn't dismiss the cognitive sciences. You're making stuff up.
I can't think of any problem with the cognitive sciences doing the job. Why would there be a problem?
What I did told you is that, contrary to your belief, they're not doing it at the moment.

I replied to your objections. I provided the relevant details. You should be able to understand from what I already said. There's nothing else you need from me to be able to address my question.
Instead, all you do is try to falsify the premises. But if you think the premises are false, why asks details that would be relevant to you only if you accepted the premises.
I'm not a repeater, Yazata. You would need to try a little harder here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think SP's posts are contradictory. This understanding, in his view, isn't a science or a theory.
Then we get this:"the question" hasn't been answered since Aristotle, apparently, this is obvious and something we can all, erm, deduce for ourselves.
So for some unspecified reason we can disqualify everything since Aristotle from being a science of logic. And we have to exclude Aristotle too because he didn't answer "the question".

Sorry, you're not making sense here. What's your point and what's your arguments in support of your point?! Do I have to read your mind?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The existence of logic (being able to define it) and the ''science of logic,'' are two different things, though, don't you think? Not trying to say that Aristotle didn't make in roads, but...

I'm definitely impressed by Aristotle's contribution. Yet, it's a fact he only pointed at the existence of logic, somewhat like someone would point a finger to make a child become aware of the Moon. He did do a little of formal logic, all good unlike that of mathematicians, but barely enough to make sure we understand what he was talking about. And the fact is, from what they say about Aristotle's formal logic, mathematicians only show they haven't understood.
Once you realise there's something, you can start to think about how you could do some science about it. And it's 2,500 years already now we know logic exists. Isn't it time we do something about it? So, why is there still no science of logic? I find this rather perplexing that nobody seems to even notice.
EB

 

[wegs]

I'm definitely impressed by Aristotle's contribution. Yet, it's a fact he only pointed at the existence of logic, somewhat like someone would point a finger to make a child become aware of the Moon. He did do a little of formal logic, all good unlike that of mathematicians, but barely enough to make sure we understand what he was talking about. And the fact is, from what they say about Aristotle's formal logic, mathematicians only show they haven't understood.
Once you realise there's something, you can start to think about how you could do some science about it. And it's 2,500 years already now we know logic exists. Isn't it time we do something about it? So, why is there still no science of logic? I find this rather perplexing that nobody seems to even notice.
EB

It could have to do with that logic itself is the ''science of reasoning'' if we wanted to get technical about the definition. Logic gives way to a set of principles that lead us to reasoning, and then basing hypotheses, conclusions, etc on that reasoning. Maybe there's nothing to ''notice'' really, if we look at it that way.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It could have to do with that logic itself is the ''science of reasoning'' if we wanted to get technical about the definition. Logic gives way to a set of principles that lead us to reasoning, and then basing hypotheses, conclusions, etc on that reasoning. Maybe there's nothing to ''notice'' really, if we look at it that way.

???
There is something to notice since we noticed it.
Do you think conceivable that all the many thinkers who've been discussing deductive logic since Aristotle, and indeed before him, were only discussing how many angels on the head of a pin?
EB

 

[wegs]

???
There is something to notice since we noticed it.
Do you think conceivable that all the many thinkers who've been discussing deductive logic since Aristotle, and indeed before him, were only discussing how many angels on the head of a pin?
EB

Hmm. Maybe lol
Why do you feel no one has come up with a science for logic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hmm. Maybe lol
Why do you feel no one has come up with a science for logic?

I don't "feel" it. It's a fact.
From the few articulate reactions I got, scientists perhaps see logic as an abstraction and they are generally little motivated to investigate abstractions.
Some people in the 19th century started to discuss logic through the angle of psychology, which could have resulted eventually in a proper science. However, some philosophers, like Russell I think, fought this perspective and the critics won the battle of ideas. In effect, these people opted for a metaphysical view of logic and this definitely undercut the possibility of a science of logic. And then, the issue was gradually forgotten by successive generations of mathematicians and everybody else thinks now of logic as a mathematical discipline and no longer as an objective human capability.
EB

 

[iceaura]

No, I absolutely didn't dismiss the cognitive sciences. You're making stuff up.
I can't think of any problem with the cognitive sciences doing the job. Why would there be a problem?
What I did told you is that, contrary to your belief, they're not doing it at the moment.

Oh silly.

Research done by cognitive scientists into the development of logic and reasoning in children, for example, is being done now as it has been for decades - and it's sometimes famous, being an attractive subject for media attention: you can't have missed it.

The large scale and ongoing research into human reasoning by the AI developers and marketing algorithm developers and the like has also hit the mass media - hard to miss.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh silly.

Research done by cognitive scientists into the development of logic and reasoning in children, for example, is being done now as it has been for decades - and it's sometimes famous, being an attractive subject for media attention: you can't have missed it.

The large scale and ongoing research into human reasoning by the AI developers and marketing algorithm developers and the like has also hit the mass media - hard to miss.

Derail.

Yeah, visibly you can't be bothered to actually read what the topic of the thread is. My first post says: 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.

And then people are surprised they get the rough treatment.

Here. Read that and only then comment.

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.

Or don't read it and don't comment.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

Or don't read it and don't comment.

That option certainly seems like the winner here.

This whole thread has been about you repeatedly claiming that some thing doesn't exist, and shooting down any attempts to say the thing does exist, even maybe.

Your staunch defense of nothing so much as an idea, is interesting by itself, in a completely distracting and irrelevant way. It doesn't seem to have very much to do with logic. All you've managed is a claim: "there is still no science of logic", with absolutely zero supporting evidence; the evidence appears to support the opposite claim, but you can't admit that, can you?

Because y0u're a numpty.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That option certainly seems like the winner here.

Please do. Your comments are invariably vacuous.

This whole thread has been about you repeatedly claiming that some thing doesn't exist, and shooting down any attempts to say the thing does exist, even maybe.

No. I asked a question. This required to make explicit the context of it. This in turn required that I implicitly assert the fact that there is no science of logic that develops a formal model of it. This is also a trivial fact, which is why I didn't even thought it would be disputed, which is why it was assumed in my question. Anyone disagreeing with this point would need to provide evidence to the contrary. No one did that. And that's also a trivial a fact in evidence in this thread.
Your allegations against me clearly are systematic but they are also systematically unjustified: You make false allegations about me without ever providing any evidence to support them. You are a nuisance and given the vacuity of your posts, you are only a nuisance.

Your staunch defense of nothing so much as an idea, is interesting by itself, in a completely distracting and irrelevant way. It doesn't seem to have very much to do with logic. All you've managed is a claim: "there is still no science of logic", with absolutely zero supporting evidence; the evidence appears to support the opposite claim, but you can't admit that, can you?

I didn't claim that there is no scientific studies on the logical capability of human subjects, although I think they are no good. But the obvious fact is that the cognitive sciences are not even trying to produce a formal model of deductive logic. Hence, there is no scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.
Again, nobody provided any evidence to the contrary.

Because y0u're a numpty.

Sure. Why don't you just ignore me?
EB

 

[arfa brane]

But the obvious fact is that the cognitive sciences are not even trying to produce a formal model of deductive logic.

But that isn't an obvious fact. Not even close.

It looks a lot more like something you decided is true. That's great, but it isn't science, nor is it philosophy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

 

[iceaura]

My first post says: 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.

Starting with children, of course - as with many other investigations into objective performance and manifest capabilities of human beings by cognitive scientists.

As far as a "formal model of logic", you have seen links. It's called "metalogic", accurately enough, and you will have to your own net searches now - blowing off other people's has discouraged your informants.

Why no science of logic?

There is, as presented to you. Read up - it will do you good to learn something.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As far as a "formal model of logic", you have seen links. It's called "metalogic"

No.
In the study of formal languages, the object of study is... formal languages.
In the investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain, the object of study is logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
I'm not sure why this seems so difficult for you to understand but I'd worry if I were you.
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?
I already replied to that but you clearly don't understand the difference between the study of formal languages and the investigation of logic as a performance of human beings and a capacity of the brain.
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.
Sorry for repeating myself but I'm at a loss as to how make you understand what is otherwise perfectly obvious.
EB

 

[iceaura]

From the few articulate reactions I got, scientists perhaps see logic as an abstraction and they are generally little motivated to investigate abstractions.

You were linked to various investigations by cognitive scientists into the development and nature of logical reasoning in developing and reasoning human beings. That is of course not an investigation of the abstract, but the physical. The links were to empirical research, producing physical data. It is a fairly active field.

If you are unable to follow them, their purpose etc, take a class in the topic, or read on the subject with a tutor to help you through the hard parts.

Please note that I took the pain in my first post to define logic as a capability of our brain and a performance of human beings to distinguish the notion I was talking about from logic as a formal system.

You also required of respondents that they provide you with evidence of efforts to make a formal description or model of logic. You were apparently unable to find them either, on the internet.
You were provided with that as well, in various links and hints to the topic of "metalogic" and similar areas of ongoing research.

Again: if you are unfamiliar enough with the basic concepts that you don't recognize these efforts or their relevance to your questions, take a class or read with a tutor.

 

[Speakpigeon]

LOL.

Repeating yourself, too?

I guess we don't have anything left to argue over.
EB