I have now read the introduction threads to logic, and must admit it looked like a manual for kids, it only explains liniar logic, and doesn't even give the most simplest of warnings avoiding demagogues, jumping to conclusions ..etc. Imo it actually makes people more stupid, than making them wiser/intelligent since they will not learn of aforementioned phallasies.
A simple factor which should be included is "uncertainty"
Specially considering this is a forum, and considerd a heaven for knowledge, insight ..etc, we offer people such kind of medival stuff.
I might be satisfyed when the introduction will be good enough for the broad mass of philosophers to solve my greater logic thread.
LOL! I suppose the introduction to logic threads do look like a manual for kids! Many of those threads are simply meant to expose people who may not even be aware of propositional logic to the basic principles etc. It is by no means a comprehensive examination of logic. If you want to get a much more thorough analysis of logic in its many forms, you may want to check out Emil's excellently structured blog.
Thanks for acting like an idiot!
You are quite welcome! Honestly, I do believe that you may be giving the subject of logic a very good try, which is (at least in my opinion) the most important thing of all. I think as time goes on and you come to better understand and appreciate logic (whether that be the fundamentals or the more abstract parts), you may mellow out in the way you approach the topic and the way you converse with others in regards to it. In the end, we all need time to develop, whether that be in regards to concepts, notions, or even basic composition and grammar.
I'm quite puzzled why you insist on keeping the introduction to simpleminded logic, I hope some day you will understand greater logic, and update the site.
An introduction to logic is just that; it is designed for a specific audience of readers who are not logical experts. It seems unreasonable to ask of an introduction to be other than it is, a first step in the study of logic.
It would seem more productive, rather than to complain about the content (or gaps in it), to provide a thorough discussion of informal fallacies in an effort to contribute to the community.
I find it very reasonable to put a minimum of warning to useing logic, not to delude one self with naive thinking.
With thousands of years of logic, and we end up with ..this?
Here is an idea Hexhammer. Why don't you take some time and construct your own logic tutorial. It may be a more productive for you to do that rather than critique/complain about some else's work or gripe about the system in general. I'm sure that if whatever you discuss pertaining to logic is as of such high a quality as your "greater logic" thread, we can all seriously benefit from what you have to say.
Also, I find it interesting that though you plainly state that you wish there were more to have been said on the simplest of logical fallacies, you are so ironically prone to making a few of them in your own posts. For example, in your own post #9, you commit (among others) unwarranted assumptions. How do you know whether or not jgweed has most likely not been in a "cutthroat business and have to produce solutions and results." In my mind, there is only one man who can handle a cutthroat atmosphere and think quick on his feet resulting in fantastic solutions... and his name is Jack Sparrow. Yes, Jack Sparrow, captain of the Black Pearl. He fought a Kraken for god's sake, and over the span of 2 movies no less.
I applaud your suggestion, however I can't really do that, I think in pictures and have a hard time translating them to specifyed words.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I make qualifyed assumptions, which is an importaint ability in a buisness world.
But you resist seeing things from the perspectives of others. Philosophy has a come a long way, in my opinion, and it's a beautiful pursuit. If idiots foul up the world, it's as easily explained as a lack of philosophy. Do you think the wise men are generally heeded? Not unless they provide a better mousetrap. Is indignation a sign of wisdom, or could indignation be the opposite, a failure to see the world as an ultimately justified whole?
I feel like you are trying to negate a tradition you have not begun to engage. Logic, in its deepest sense, is the heart of philosophy. That's just my impractical naive opinion. :Glasses:
You speak of your philosophy with such high regard and love, beacause you don't realize it's faults and shortcomings.
Perhaps. Or maybe we can actually evolve our philosophies and reduce the number of faults and shortcomings. And if you assert that we cannot, you assert necessarily a philosophy with faults and shortcomings. And worse than that, you are stuck with it, as you deny the evolution of thought.
I don't really think you deny the evolution of thought, though. Nor do I think you understand what my philosophy is. But I don't resent you for your statement.
And I'm pretty sure you would as well. If you think in pictures, work with it. Use pictures to express your ideas, think outside the box, produce those solutions and results.
Evolution of thoughts is the same as keeping your buisness afloat, as evolving along with the market demands, being able to evolve new strategies, thus not fall behind and die like a dinosaur.
I have observed you for a long time, tryed to speak on your terms which I admittedly was bad at, but had to realize I could not agree with much of your reasoning, basis of ideology ..etc.