/lit/ - Literature

ZR is fucking trash, going all the way is seriously superior.

>>18302018
I like long socks, ZR, all the way, or just above the knees, but garter belts are my favorite.

I don't think the average person needs to learn formal logic.

>tranime
Ignored. That's why you have no discussion here other than ZR and dragonball Z. Consider getting electroconvulsive shock therapy.

>>18303615
>hating on an entire medium because some of the fans are troons
stay mad lobotomite

>>18301941
Just understanding the difference between A implies B and B implies A, proof by contradiction, what a tautology is, and the basic idea of what truth in formal logic means would immensely help the level of critical thinking of people who didn't know it. And learning all that doesn't require a lot of study.

>>18301941
If someone cares for IQ, logic training was literally showed to raise it. (Although disguised under a fancy name as "relational skills".)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104160801630023

So the surprising take-away is that logical thinking makes you better at logical thinking. Thanks, psychology.

>>18303645
>hating on an entire medium because some of the fans are troons
Yes.

>>18303689
*shown

>>18303645
The entire medium was invented and promulgated by the Americans to weaken Japan. Samurais would have burned it, same with weaklings like you.

>>18303723
>>18303701

How much did the inventor of the IQ test have in IQ? He must have been very smart to be able to make a test to measure the intelligence of others.

>>18303806
testmakers make testtakers

>>18301941
Very very few people need to learn formal logic. The principles of logic maybe. But formal logic no.

>>18303806
IQ was invented to determine how retarded kids were. Intelligence quotient how many questions you got right in your age bracket. The over 100 stuff was tacked on later.

>>18301941
It will make you more "autistic", not more "clever". So decide based on that.
I'm neither btw haha

>>18304740
I've already been diagnosed as autistic so basically you're telling me there are zero liabilities and only benefits.

>>18303723
There was anime during the times of Imperial Japan and world war 2.

>>18301941
If you look closely you can see her panty outline haha

>>18301941
Having a basic capacity to understand logical connectives in everyday language would help with literacy tremendously, especially statistical literacy. I found that even after my first logic class, my reading comprehension was enhanced.

Formal logic is most useful only if you intend to actually use it, ie you're engineering some sort of constraint solving mechanism. Formal logic is both specific instances of certain highly expressive grammars, as well as higher order languages that have more in common with philosophical logic.

Start with boolean and constraint logic. It's somewhat disheartening this is not part of philosophical curriculum all that much, even though they serve as most intuitive examples of what logic actually *is* as an empirical instance.

Proceed with combinatory logic, the simplest form of higher-order logic. From there it explodes into type theory, set, operator and functional algebras. This isn't really viable without mathfag training, and the parallels to philosophy of logic is less apparent (but still there).

>>18303723
>warrior male culture
lmaooo

>>18307484
good catch

>>18301941
learn it up to predicate logic and learn one calculas like natural calculus and you know enough to know some logic and decide for yourself if you want to keep going

I study math and just learned it for fun really. I don't know if it's been useful or not but I thought it was a nice mental exercise

>>18301941
anyone who is not interested in formal logic is a retard that its only interested in philosophy because there they cant be proven wrong

>>18301941
No, mathematics in general is not worth it. It's just a waste of time. I regret choosing math as my career, but I'm already far too deep to pull back now.

>>18301941
The main thing that helps with formal logic is that it helps you develop genuine rational thinking at a muscle memory level. You'll be able to spot bad reasoning (fallacies) more easily and also know how to fix your own reasoning and present it in a way that is inferentially secure. It helps you survive in a world of false information pushed by bad reasoning. You're not actually going to use the formal logic very much directly though, but that doesn't make learning it worthless.

>>18301941
"The Logic Book" is a good way to get started.

If you want learn logic for the sake of being able to better engage in philosophy that utilizes it, just read "Philosophical Devices" by Papineau. It includes more formal methods than just logic and it's a hell lot better as an intro that a reader who is outside of a classroom setting can engage in thnt the fat ass books lot's of other people are recommending.

>>18309967
Really? Why do you think that? Cant find a job?

I need a socratic dialogue chart to know how a conversation is structured. Any anons have one?

>>18310380
It's not about jobs. I got into mathematics thinking it was the closer I'd get to understanding life objectively. I really thought logic, math and physics would provide me answers. But in the end math is nothing but a game. It is a beautiful and complex game, probably the greatest game ever made, but it's still just a game. I do enjoy playing it, but it gets tiresome after the years. At least I didn't choose philosophy, which is even worse.

>>18311487
Whats wrong with philosophy

>>18311604
Math realizes it's a game. Philosophy doesn't

>>18311614
> But in the end math is nothing but a game.
> Math realizes it's a game.
There might be something to it but I don't think math realizes it. There were lots of platonists among the great.

>>18311663
All mathematicians recognize that you can't prove fundamental axioms. Making up new axioms for interesting theories is also pretty common.

>>18311672
>>18311672
>All mathematicians recognize that you can't prove fundamental axioms.
Oh, that's what you meant. Then I misunderstood.

Formal logic was extremely helpful to me. I have since realized the average person regularly makes incoherent and retarded arguments

>>18303649
>the difference between A implies B and B implies A,
It amazes me how many people don't understand this distinction

>>18311700
I'm at the point where I don't even talk to people because of that and they think I'm retarded.

>>18311728
Retards think everyone smarter than them is retarded, ironically.

>>18311705
I know, it's crazy. People are so bad at these things that training them at them has been shown to improve their iq-test performance by 23 point on average. And there is really nothing fancy in this training. Just simple stuff like contradiction of contradiction, or implications.

("relational skill training", in case someone wants the source)

>>18311798
People fail this in alarming numbers. Most of the time they don't give multiple choices they just ask which cards to flip

>>18311829
Oh and all cards have a letter on one side and a number on the other. Image left that part out otherwise you need to flip the Q too.

>>18311850

Seriously, what is the thought process that leads to failing it? Is it not knowing what a vowel is? An even number? Please, explain.

>>18311604
I'm the one you quoted. The problem with philosophy in this day and age is that it's stagnant, not to say dead. The 1000th Hegel specialist is not worth 1/100 of a Proust.

>>18311888
It's not knowing the difference between if A then B and if B then A.

>>18311798
I shouldnt be so pretentious. I'm fortunate to have taken formal logic. Most people haven't. I'm hung up on the specific term I greentexted because not only did the professors I have spend extra time on it but also because I see it so commonly.
What especially annoys me is that people who should know better still fall into it. My dad is an electrical engineer and is very methodical and logical. But when discussing anything regarding politice or ethics he is always quick to embrace the lowest tier of sophistry

>>18311829
I got this right but I think the test is harder than you're making it out to be. It requires people to realize that you're looking to prove that vowels on one side == even on the other side, NOT vowels on one side == even on the other side && even on one side == vowel on the other side

>>18311953
+1

>>18311973
Since cards only have two sides then shouldn't the statement be a biconditional? Otherwise only A would he a valid choice.

>>18311987
That's what I'm saying it's not knowing the difference between if A then B and if B then A that makes people fail.

>>18312003
Caught one. You don't understand the difference between if A then B and if B then A.

>>18301941
/lit/ is full of relativist pseuds who hate logic

>>18312016
You have to check 7 as well since there could be a vowel on the other side which would invalidate the rule. If A then B has the same truth value as it's contrapositive if not B then not A. 7 is not an even number so the other side has to be not a vowel and needs to be checked.

How do you deal with the blackpill that logic and reason have limits and can't prove everything?

>>18312016
I really dont get the question then. If the card with the number 7 on it had a vowel on the other side then the rule wouldn't be violated for the same reason that the card with the number 4 on it having a consonant wouldn't violate the rule.

The average person has an IQ of 100, so studying such things would be a total waste of their time

>>18312282
The rule is if a card has a vowel on one side then it will have an even number on the other
>If the card with the number 7 on it had a vowel on the other side then the rule wouldn't be violated
This clearly violates the rule it would have a vowel on one side but then the other side would not be even

>>18312301
If you insist on considering IQ, there're studies that show that studying such things has potential to change this average. I have already mentioned them in this thread.

>>18312309
I think he thinks that "the other side" is fixed to mean the side we don't see.

>>18311672
Do your peers think the same or they just can't be bothered with the current state of affairs?

>>18312475
How the fuck do you prove an axiom? If it's an axiom it can't be proven that's why it's an axiom. Otherwise it would be a theorem proven by other axioms.

>>18312092
exercise faith aka irrationality, but you already do that. faith is the root of all action/thought

>>18311953
I fully agree with you on that count. It seems like we haven't had a great philosopher in a long while.

>>18311829
A7, ezpz

>>18303689
relational responding isn't the same was what you learn in logic. it's much simpler

>>18311487
>It is a beautiful and complex game
Why do mathfags insist that mathematics is beautiful? There is nothing beautiful about abstraction. If you use math to produce visual sequences or musical sequences, sure, that can be beautiful -- but you don't need math to produce beautiful visual sequences or musical sequences. In fact, many of the best musicians and artists create things which make little mathematical sense.

>>18313545
>isn't the same was what you learn in logic
*isn't the same as was what you learn in logic
there's actually a site that trains you using the insights of relational frame theory (https://raiseyouriq.com/ i think). i remember playing around with it a few times as well as reading about the basics of RFT. again it is very basic. it basically just gives you a bunch relations and asks you to make a basic inference out of all of them. a formal logic course would ask you for far more than that, and might be too task specific

>>18313598
thanks

>>18301941
Fuck you Proudly