View Poll Results: Is the argument valid?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the argument is valid.

    3 33.33%
  • No, the argument is not valid.

    3 33.33%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The argument doesn't make sense

    3 33.33%
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 235 of 235

Thread: And the next U.K. Prime Minister will be?

  1. Top | #231
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,306
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,968
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    If you think logic is only Aristotle and his ancient text, and syllogisms you are extremely narrow minded.
    How can you say something so stupid?!

    This is yet another idiotic misrepresentation of what I say.

    I specified what I meant by logic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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?
    EB
    You've seen this post since you replied to it, here:

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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?
    EB
    Math and science are consider different disciplines. Science deals with physical processes. Science looks at the biological process of the brain that could give rise to logic.

    Since the rise of computers logic has moved from philosophy to computer science, which is considered a separate discipline from math, although there is overlap.

    It is heavy reading, you could try to read Knuth's books especially Semi Numerical Algorithms. The focus and attention is there, but it is has evolved far beyond Aristotle and his syllogisms. Classical logic from philosophy has little direct use.

    There are several applied forms of symbolic logic, one being Boolean Algebra with a standard set of electrical symbols which I am familiar with.


    BNF is used to describe the logic behind each instruction in a processor instruction ire set.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form

    Depending on what you work on symbolic and formal logic are common.
    There is symbol;ic language to describe computer languages, part of that covered under Theory Of Computaion.
    See?

    You are a complete moron.
    EB

  2. Top | #232
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,950
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.
    Could you please give examples?
    EB
    If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.

  3. Top | #233
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,306
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,968
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    the fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations of syllogistic logic.
    Could you please give examples?
    EB
    If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.
    I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

    I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

    You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
    EB

  4. Top | #234
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,950
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.
    I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

    I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

    You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
    EB
    I guess Boolean logic applied to real problems can not compare to made up 'improved squid' arguments. Much too challenging for me.

    As you repeatedly claim something is wrong with mathematical logic I would have thought you would jump right in to the Boolean thread and show me exactly how it is all wrong..

  5. Top | #235
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,306
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,968
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    If you want to discuss mathematical logic which you chronically demean take it over the Boolean thread.
    I'm not interested discussing Boolean logic or mathematical logic with a dummy.

    I asked you to provide examples of your claim that syllogistic logic contains "fallacies and ambiguities and interpretations".

    You made that claim here, you post your examples here.
    EB
    I guess Boolean logic applied to real problems can not compare to made up 'improved squid' arguments. Much too challenging for me.
    In other words, you made a claim you couldn't support with any evidence.

    I guess no one will be surprised here.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    As you repeatedly claim something is wrong with mathematical logic I would have thought you would jump right in to the Boolean thread and show me exactly how it is all wrong..
    I would have if you'd started by asking me "what's wrong with it?".

    But you never did, and indeed still don't, so why should I do it?

    Further, I plainly explained what is wrong with it. I even conducted polls to show how mathematical logic was at odds with most people's logic. I explained how mathematical logic wasn't founded on empirical evidence. I asked for a justification of mathematical logic and couldn't get one. But it seems you sort of can't get yourself to consider what people say at face value.

    Given that you constantly misrepresent my views, I guess you must have some kind of psychological condition, and there's nothing I can do to treat that. Either you understand what I say or you don't, and a long experience here shows that you don't understand much of what I say, if anything at all.

    You just mindlessly repeat misrepresentation after misrepresentation, irrelevance after irrelevance, copy whole Wiki pages, as if anyone cared, you're just a waste of time and very few posters took the time to reply to you. See how your threads are popular here. Most people would sort of step back and try to understand what's wrong with them but, no, you keep going, oblivious of whatever people can say.
    EB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •