2006-1-2 05:22:00
Response to "Definition of Logic" Post:
Larry,
One of the problems we seem to have in communicating is you seem to think there is only one way to define the word "logic," that it is a formal system of some kind and that is it.
This is just not true. Almost all the dictionaries have three or more ways to define the word. I again looked through several dictionaries and instead of just picking the number one definition I picked several that most closely seemed to represent that which is used by the common man as well as myself when generally used in my writings.
Here they are:
"Reasoned and reasonable judgment; 'it made a certain kind of logic'"
"Valid reasoning 'Your paper lacks the logic to prove its thesis.'"
"Reason or sound judgment as in utterances or actions."
"Effective or convincing force."
I accept the fact of your use of the word "logic" as being a formal system of reasoning. Of course, there are several different formal systems also.
But in addition to this there is the common use of it which is basically the use of reason and sound judgment to arrive at a truthful conclusion.
This is not my definition but a popular dictionary definition. I've never claimed to be an authority on logic I only claim to use logic. Logic is more than common sense. It also includes uncommon sense.
I don't know why there is a problem acknowledging that both of us are using the word correctly, but in accordance to different dictionary definitions. And yes, the dictionaries are the best earned authorities to gauge the accepted general usage of words. What's the alternative except the chaos of everyone just making up their own definitions?
Response to "Two Classes" Post:
Larry:
My general impression is that in the last day or so your claims have been shown to have some defects (ambiguity, and incompleteness). I have not proven that your views on what constitute logic are 100% wrong, but I do believe that I have given ample evidence of the validity of my claims.
If you are referring to your claim that I am wrong then the best way to do this is with a real world example. You gave one which was which was the illogical juror, but this just proved my point when one considers that a decision and a conclusion are two different things.
To disprove my statement one would have to give an example that illustrates the point.
Larry:
In your very first message to the Keys of Knowledge Mailing List you wrote:
"No earthly teacher is flawless. If you limit yourself to learning according to the exact mindset of the teacher, you will also inherit his flaws."
"In the true student-teacher relationship authority is only recognized because it is earned. Let's say you want to learn Spanish and two teachers surface who say they can teach you. They both seem equally convincing, but the truth is that one of them knows the language well and the other one does not. If you accept either as an authority just because he or someone else tells you to, then you have a 50-50 chance of getting a bad teacher. What do you do? You test the teacher. Have him actually speak some Spanish. Give him several paragraphs from English and see if he can translate and then check out the translation for correctness. Finally, you will establish in your mind that one of them can truly teach you."
In that last quote you talk of testing Spanish teachers. Is it the case that I have accepted your challenge in order to test you as a teacher of logic? Is it possible that my ultimate concern was to try to discover if as a teacher you were capable of admitting the least flaw or error in your teaching? Is it possible that I just wanted to know if you were flexible enough to consider the possibility that you might have erred in some small way? Was it possible that I might be concerned that in some small way you might consider that at least some of my words might have some value?
I think your words have a lot of value., There have been many times I have been very impressed with your reasoning, logic and choice of words. It seems to be important to you that I admit that I am wrong on something. When I see that I am wrong I will readily admit it and have done it before on the list. It would be deceitful to admit a wrong I do not see.
Can you point to a specific error to which you think I should admit?
Larry
Over about six years now I have invested a lot of hope in the belief that you are a superior teacher, and that through promoting your teachings I might be doing a worthwhile service. Nothing that has transpired so far has dissuaded me that I was wrong to do that, or that I would be mistaken to continue to do that.
I am thankful for that as your service and support has been invaluable - not only to me but to the group and many visiting readers.
Larry
What has transpired in my view is that I have clearly seen some of your flaws and limitations.
I certainly have flaws, but they may not be exactly what you are seeing. You think I am unwilling to admit when I am wrong. I say that I am and I do. I do make a great effort to not let many errors creep into my writings and do need to see error in them before I will change them.
Larry:
I will address just one more statement in your post:
"Jesus never used formal logic in his arguments, but most see they were very logical and they certainly silenced his opponents who usually had no comeback."
" Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" John 10:33-36
1. It is written in your law (scriptures) that "ye are gods". (premise 1)
2. The scriptures are true. (premise 2)
3. Therefore "ye are gods." (conclusion by modus ponens)
"Ok Pharisees, I have proven by formal logic that I am justified in calling myself a Son of God. So what is your problem? Why are you calling me a blasphemer?"
Personally I see Jesus making a very formal logical argument here.
I guess if he applies formal logic in your thinking then I do too for I have used this process many times in my writings..
My point was that he just spoke from a logical mindset and wasn't thinking of or trying to adhere to any formal rules of arguing.
Larry
I would agree with you that there is not much more we can say to each other on this subject. I only hope that at least you would understand what I said. I don't require that you agree, but I would hope that at least you really understood what I said.
I think I understand where you are coming from and respect you for it. I think both of us have valid, but somewhat different definitions of the word. I accept your definition as one of the valid ones and would hope you do the same for me.
I do notice that when we are on the same page in an argument that our logical presentation process is very similar.
It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese. Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved