Logic

[Anonymous No.6399164]

Why do the e/lit/es hate traditional logic? I'm taking an introductory logic class at uni and find it to be good fun, as well as to be self-evidently valid if you buy into the axiomatic solution to the trilemma. Explain to me why you find it pointless and/or irrelevant and then prove to me you don't hold any axioms to be true. Ever used math to solve a "real-life" problem? > Inb4 spooks > inb4 OP is a faggot for using inb4

[Anonymous No.6399195]

Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

[Anonymous No.6399196]

symbolic logic is just nice in logic class

then you get causality and it's not "good fun" anymore

[Anonymous No.6399251]

>>6399195
Convoluted response. If one holds any truth to be axiomatic, it's inconsistent to dismiss any other argument or mode of thought on the basis that its rests on axioms.

[Anonymous No.6399300]

Solve this syllogism or else you're a retard:

Premise 1: No kitten that loves fish is teachable.
Premise 2: No kitten without a tail will play with a gorilla.
Premise 3: Kittens with whiskers will always love fish.
Premise 4: No teachable kitten has green eyes.
Premise 5: No kittens have tails unless they have whiskers.

[Kirtpole No.6399960]

>>6399300
Therefore, ... ?

[Anonymous No.6399996]

>>6399300
This is not a syllogism.

[Anonymous No.6400577]

>>6399996
Except that it is a syllogism. Look up what a syllogism is.

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore... Socrates is mortal.

The same pattern follows for this syllogism, save for the increased number of premises. You pick any two with a common premise and work from there to a singular conclusion. This is clearly a goofy example, but it illustrates the concept.

[Anonymous No.6400598]

Classical logic is the only real logic tbh

[Anonymous No.6400605]

>>6399960
>>6399996
Take premises 1 & 3 as the first grouping with a shared concept. We can infer that therefore, no kitten with whiskers is teachable: premise 6.

If we then use premises 6&4, we can infer that premise 7 is that no kitten with whiskers has green eyes.

Continuing with premises 7 & 5, we can deduce that no kittens with tails have green eyes, which is premise 8.

Looking at premises 8 & 2, it can be reasoned that no kittens with green eyes will play with a gorilla, which is the conclusion.

This is, as I said, a whimsical example with no real world application, but you can replace any series of premises that involve axiomatic truths and deduce further truths or illustrate proofs in this way. The fact that /lit/ doesn't get this makes me think this is the reason that logic is looked down upon. If you accept axiomatic truth, then logic serves to explore and prove these truths, and this is an easy example of the means by which such a thing is possible.

[Anonymous No.6400610]

>>6400598
Illustrate what you mean by classical logic please - I'm curious.

[Anonymous No.6400660]

>>6399300
define the following:
"Kittens", "No kittens", "No kitten", and "No teachable kitten"

[Anonymous No.6400685]

>>6400610
Logic that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.6400689]

>>6400577
Except in >>6399300 you only have a list of premises, without positing any real argument.

[Anonymous No.6400831]

>>6399300

There are ten different classes of kitten provided by these premises.

[Anonymous No.6400885]

Lol loving the level of scholarship here. "Define kitten". The mere fact that you are using the English language to communicate an odes to me implies that you accept the use of language as a referent to actual concepts. Given that you accept this axiom, you've demonstrated a willingness to accept some sort of a priori truth, or at least a willingness to make use of these concepts as it suits you. Define "define"... Check m8 atheists.

[Anonymous No.6400891]

**idea

[Anonymous No.6400894]

Formal logic:

Cancer is a problem the government needs to solve
Unicorn horns cure cancer

Ergo, the government should invest its money in finding unicorn horns

[Anonymous No.6400914]

The argument to infinity, that nothing is knowable and that all concepts must be proven and defined in order to be discussed, is so fallacious given that in order to express these criticisms one must first buy into a series of axiomatic truths. Until one can demonstrate that one takes nothing as an a priori truth in this world, one has no leg to stand on when making the infinite regress point. You might as well post. "Sjdhhfkdsdj" if you don't think any concept (such as language) can be employed without constantly questioning how we can possibly know to what the speaker is referring when they choose to mash symbols together.

[Anonymous No.6400922]

>>6400894
You implied many other premises which may be refuted.
>the government ought invest its money in order to solve problems
>the government ought invest money in things that don't appear to exist

[Anonymous No.6400938]

>>6400605
>If we then use premises 6&4, we can infer that premise 7 is that no kitten with whiskers has green eyes.

Invalid.

All teachable kittens lack green eyes(4)
Kittens with whiskers are not teachable(6)

Whether it is that some, all, or none, of the unteachable kittens have green eyes is not mentioned. Though it can be asserted, trivially, that for a kitten with whiskers they either have green eyes or not, in which case it is possible that either all, some, or none of kittens with whiskers have green eyes.

[Anonymous No.6400941]

>>6400660
Such a circular argument. If the point of your post is that all expressed ideas have no basis in reality, no linguistic referent, and I accept your refutation to my argument (nothing can be defined all the way down, nothing has inherent meaning) then the series of letters you wrote loses all meaning according to its own reasoning. You defeat yourself when you use words with such arguments, and must find a non-axiomatic way to communicate your high school level criticisms.

[Anonymous No.6400960]

>>6400941
No I mean I thought of them as separate variables, such as No kittens being 'things that aren't kittens' rather than 'kittens that are not'

[Anonymous No.6400978]

>>6400960
No "f" means "not a single individual instance of the category f". " not f's" would mean all things that are not of the "f" category.

[Anonymous No.6400991]

BRING BACK ROMANTICISM
R
I
N
G

B
A
C
K

ROMANTICISM

[Anonymous No.6401014]

>>6399300
A kitten that loves fish is not teachable
A kitten without a tail will not play with a gorilla
kittens with whiskers will always love fish = not teachable
teachable kittens don't have green eyes
All kittens don't have tails unless they have whiskers -> kittens with tails aren't teachable

So... all kittens without tails and green eyes are teachable?

[Anonymous No.6401044]

>>6400991
>implying it's ever left
even decadentism was romantic as fuck

[Anonymous No.6401069]

>>6401014

You forgot 'without whiskers'.

Also, no, if only blue-eyed cats were teachable then brown-eyed cats would be unteachable making your conclusion false since brown-eyed cats don't have green-eyes.

Precisely, kittens with tails are not teachable and kittens with green eyes are not teachable and kittens with both are retarded.

[Anonymous No.6402366]

>>6400577
>The same pattern follows for this syllogism, save for the increased number of premises.
Yeah but a syllogism is by definition comprised of two premises and a conclusion. That's not a syllogism and you're retarded

[Anonymous No.6402370]

>>6400685
I don't think you know anything

[Anonymous No.6402372]

I'm a comp sci major and the infinite regress problem is more troubling than any of you know

[Anonymous No.6402529]

>>6402366
Two or more. You're a retard. Look up "polysyllogism" or just understand the concept.

[Kirtpole No.6404061]

>>6400605
Guy said it was a syllogism and a syllogism must have at least two premises and a conclusion. It's not that /lit/ doesn't get it, is that all of those premises together do not make a syllogism without a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6404395]

Took Intro to Logic when I was in 9th grade in some shitty class.

Then I self learned C/C++ same year or so. Which gave me a many of the foundations.

[Anonymous No.6404425]

>>6399300
>leaves out the conclusion
>thinks syllogisms are, on par with algebraic equations and thus to be "solved" and not shown to be valid.
What a fucking idiot. And acts as if he is here to teach us something.

I can't fucking stand you autodidacts.

[Anonymous No.6404470]

>>6399300
Kittens with whiskers have tails and green eyes, they will always love fish and play with a gorilla, but they are not teachable.

That's not a syllogism though. Some sort of a logical puzzle (therefore you should omit all of the "Premise 1-5", because it suggests that it is an argument which it is not---others have mentioned why) the instructions of which should say: find all the properties for the kittens in question.

[Kirtpole No.6404542]

>>6404425
this

[Anonymous No.6405011]

ITT: Logic well meme'd, everyone butthurt.

[Anonymous No.6405017]

>>6404470
How did you conclude that these kittens have green eyes? Yeah, not a syllogism, it's from a Lewis Carroll book on symbolic logic I think.

[Anonymous No.6405789]

>>6404425
underrated post