3 ms·

What Is Logic?

12 points by danboarder 5y ago

visarga 5y ago
Logic, math and science have been criticized for being the tools of the dominating class that perpetuate oppression. That bothers me, logic was supposed to be the way we can resolve our differences, not something specific to a group identity. It seems the critics care more about fighting the social justice war than acknowledging the degree of cooperation we have achieved between groups, including access to science, technology and culture no matter what your identity is relative to that of the original creator. It used to be the church criticizing science that run afoul of religious dogma. Now it's critical social justice. The end effect is that we can't talk anymore so all we are left with is social warfare.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  This comment seems to be flamebait having nothing to do with the article.
- danboarder 5y ago
  I'm aware of some of that social drama going on but truthfully, I don't care about it. I'm interested in logic and history and science and will keep learning anyway.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    But doesn't this just seem like kind of a bad content farm?
    - danboarder 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're implying, care to elaborate? Generally I think of logic is a precursor to programming, and understanding the history of logic in the context of philosophy should not be controversial, in my opinion. Further, I'm not the first to explore this connection, here is a thread I read recently on how study of philosophy can contribute to being a successful programmer: https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-think-programming-and-philosophy-relate-to-each-other https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-think-programmi...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
shreyshnaccount 5y ago
A pretty good rapper.
momentoftop 5y ago
I wish that anyone trying to teach logic would emphasise that there are many, many possible formal systems for any particular logic, and there is absolutely no standard. That way, confused readers won't end up on places like /r/logic asking "how do I formally prove this proposition in logic?" only to be told "we don't know what formal system you're using [and we don't even know what logic]." Or worse, readers will go on to write their own blog post telling more readers that the one system they happened to learn is the extent of logic. So don't do this: > there are 10 rules of inference that we can use in proving the validity of arguments https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/03/28/rules-of-inference/ https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/03/28/rules-of-inferen... If there were just 10 rules of inference in logic, that would be really cool to know. But there aren't. There are infinitely many rules of inference, and many different minimal sets can be appropriately chosen from which to derive all the others. Once you realise that, a random selection like the one on this page simply isn't interesting at all. In fact, the choice here looks like a bunch of historical remnants inelegantly thrown together. For comparison, this is a bit like writing a blog called "what is programming", and then going straight into the syntax and semantics of, say, Pascal as if it's the only programming language. If you don't understand the difference between programming and Pascal, I'd advise you don't write a blog called "What is programming?" The same applies with logic, and given some of the author's other fairly substantial technical misunderstandings, my advice is to try a different resource for this topic.

12 points by danboarder 5y ago

Logic, math and science have been criticized for being the tools of the dominating class that perpetuate oppression. That bothers me, logic was supposed to be the way we can resolve our differences, not something specific to a group identity. It seems the critics care more about fighting the social justice war than acknowledging the degree of cooperation we have achieved between groups, including access to science, technology and culture no matter what your identity is relative to that of the original creator. It used to be the church criticizing science that run afoul of religious dogma. Now it's critical social justice. The end effect is that we can't talk anymore so all we are left with is social warfare.

guerrilla 5y ago
This comment seems to be flamebait having nothing to do with the article.
danboarder 5y ago
I'm aware of some of that social drama going on but truthfully, I don't care about it. I'm interested in logic and history and science and will keep learning anyway.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  But doesn't this just seem like kind of a bad content farm?
  - danboarder 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you're implying, care to elaborate? Generally I think of logic is a precursor to programming, and understanding the history of logic in the context of philosophy should not be controversial, in my opinion. Further, I'm not the first to explore this connection, here is a thread I read recently on how study of philosophy can contribute to being a successful programmer: https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-think-programming-and-philosophy-relate-to-each-other https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/how-do-you-think-programmi...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

shreyshnaccount 5y ago

A pretty good rapper.

momentoftop 5y ago

I wish that anyone trying to teach logic would emphasise that there are many, many possible formal systems for any particular logic, and there is absolutely no standard. That way, confused readers won't end up on places like /r/logic asking "how do I formally prove this proposition in logic?" only to be told "we don't know what formal system you're using [and we don't even know what logic]." Or worse, readers will go on to write their own blog post telling more readers that the one system they happened to learn is the extent of logic. So don't do this: > there are 10 rules of inference that we can use in proving the validity of arguments https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/03/28/rules-of-inference/ https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/03/28/rules-of-inferen... If there were just 10 rules of inference in logic, that would be really cool to know. But there aren't. There are infinitely many rules of inference, and many different minimal sets can be appropriately chosen from which to derive all the others. Once you realise that, a random selection like the one on this page simply isn't interesting at all. In fact, the choice here looks like a bunch of historical remnants inelegantly thrown together. For comparison, this is a bit like writing a blog called "what is programming", and then going straight into the syntax and semantics of, say, Pascal as if it's the only programming language. If you don't understand the difference between programming and Pascal, I'd advise you don't write a blog called "What is programming?" The same applies with logic, and given some of the author's other fairly substantial technical misunderstandings, my advice is to try a different resource for this topic.