# The introduction to logic

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » The introduction to logic

Fri 16 Apr, 2010 09:35 pm
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.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html

VideCorSpoon

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:05 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153062 wrote:
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.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html

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.

LOL!

Wisdom Seeker

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:14 pm
@HexHammer,

what does it mean?

HexHammer

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:22 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;153241 wrote:
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.

LOL!
Thanks for acting like an idiot! :poke-eye:

VideCorSpoon

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:43 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153247 wrote:
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.

:slap:

Have an awesome day!!!

HexHammer

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:03 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;153250 wrote:
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.

Thanks.

VideCorSpoon

Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:08 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153257 wrote:
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.

Thanks.

Indeed, my greatest hope is that many (who are interested) will understand the fundamentals of logic to begin with and then and only then begin to critique the complexities of the aforesaid subject. I also hope that I (one day, oh day of days) understand "greater logic," because I neither profess a mastery of the subject nor do I falsely assert that what has been submitted in the past is the final say in the matter. LOL! I profess ignorance as my claim to a modicum of wisdom!

jgweed

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:23 am
@HexHammer,
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.

HexHammer

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:10 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;153555 wrote:
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.
No!
You say this, because you! You with all you philosophy never observe any dire consequenses of your philosophy, you most likely havn't been in a cutthroat buisness and have to produce solutions and results. You have a great luxuary in just sitting there with no consequences, if you have faulty logic, you don't lose 3.2 billion kr as that CEO I worked for, even worse he now got a debt of 200 million kr.

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?

Please, this forum should be better than that!

VideCorSpoon

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:48 pm
@HexHammer,
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.

Reconstructo

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:09 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153632 wrote:

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?

Hex, that computer you are using is made of logic. I have programmed computers. It's an art. And the hardware is also made of logic, to speak loosely.

I dig it, man. I see you're point. 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:

HexHammer

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:16 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;153756 wrote:
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.
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.

VideCorSpoon;153756 wrote:
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.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I make qualifyed assumptions, which is an importaint ability in a buisness world.

VideCorSpoon

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:54 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153770 wrote:
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.

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.

HexHammer;153770 wrote:
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I make qualifyed assumptions, which is an importaint ability in a buisness world.

And maybe I'm right and maybe I'm right. Thanks be to god that he gave me stubbornness, especially when I know that I am right! LOL! ( a little John Adams witticism for you free of charge).

But I definitely think you are able to make qualified assumptions. So can I, jgweed, and even Jack Sparrow, an imaginary pirate/adventurer who sails the seven seas in a wonderfully lucrative Disney franchise. And wouldn't you know it, some of that ability to make qualified assumptions rests within the world of logic, whether we care to admit it or not via induction, deduction, guesstimation, what have you.

But I also understand that important abilities to possess in the business world include mathematics, statistics, economics, psychology, etc. Some of that medieval stuff may be useful after all.

HexHammer

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:11 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;153767 wrote:
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:
I remember something about Buddha would find war as an nessesary evil, since it would force people to evolve (well along those lines), my ideas hasn't been included because it isn't nessesary to survive, if we had to survive with direct consequenses of shortcomings, we would included it because of survival.

We all know the faults and errors in logic, so why not try to include it, when we already know it? This would better help the beginners as it was intented for, instead of the beginners should start aaaalll over inventing the wheel ..so to speak.

You speak of your philosophy with such high regard and love, beacause you don't realize it's faults and shortcomings.

Reconstructo

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:30 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153787 wrote:

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.

HexHammer

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;153794 wrote:
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.
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.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 03:38 AM ----------

VideCorSpoon;153784 wrote:
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.
I have no formal education, less am I able to formulate myself with correct english terms, therefore I would most likely be really bad at it.

Maybe I will give it a try, to give some pointers, but no promises.

Reconstructo

Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:38 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153797 wrote:
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.

Well, you are probably more keen on business than I am. For me, money is just a means. I eat the air, promise crammed.

HexHammer

Wed 5 May, 2010 04:28 am
@HexHammer,
For your people of the forum I have now forwarded some basic information to VideCorSpoon, hopefully he can piece together what my chaotic mind can't.

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » The introduction to logic