The logic of Spock

[Anonymous No.4763659]

Hello /sci/

Ever since my introductory course for Logic I've been very keen on learning more about the subject and how it can be practically applied to situations

for instance in the Star Trek episode "Galileo Seven" Spock has to decide who will have to stay behind on the asteroid and he claims he can deduce this using logic. Well I'd love to be able to think in a similar logical way (although I could still reason with emotion unlike the Vulcan...)

any advice on how to learn more about Logic? either through books or the internet or videos?

[Anonymous No.4763661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

[Anonymous No.4763687]

It couldn't hurt you to keep up with the introductory stuff as well. Pianists practicing scales and all that. I know the wiki page for mathematical logic has a few pdfs on it.

[Anonymous No.4764684]

>>4763659
just got back from work, thanks for the suggestions so far but imma bump this thread just in case there is more help out there

[Sparrow !j0Oon93KwY No.4764741]

Abstract logic explains human society, by Frank Van Dun:
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/LP_Logic%20of%20Law.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics:
"Responses to argumentation ethics have been varied.[6] Many modern libertarian theorists have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them Walter Block, David Gordon, Stephan Kinsella, and Murray Rothbard,[7], who said:

In a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular, he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the scholastics, and that had brought modern libertarianism into a tiresome deadlock. Not only that: Hans Hoppe has managed to establish the case for anarcho-capitalist-Lockean rights in an unprecedentedly hard-core manner, one that makes my own natural law/natural rights position seem almost wimpy in comparison.[8]"

"State or Private Law Society?"- Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej6uqo2ugZM

Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection (Murray Rothbard)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spVl493wZUU

[Anonymous No.4764851]

>>4764741
wow thank you very much

[Sparrow !j0Oon93KwY No.4764887]

>>4764851
You are welcome
Hope you enjoy understanding it too. It is my prime logical/ethical findings.
If you want to get in touch mail me at this temporary email
[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.4764977]

>>4764887
>>4764887
understanding all this will be the hard part, but I've got nothing but time on my hands
appreciate the help.
I'm also going to get an older publication of the textbook my class used (its much cheaper) and continue studying basic logic that way

[Anonymous No.4764994]

>>4764741
get this pseudo science bullshit out of /sci/

[Anonymous No.4765060]

>>4764994
do you have any better suggestions?

[Anonymous No.4766527]

bump for interest

[Sparrow !j0Oon93KwY No.4768107]

I also enjoyed Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", in its application of logic to the problems of knowledge and science. He makes you state every argument in a symbolic way so you can analyze the logical consequences and relations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Falsifiability

It is also really helpful to study abstract algebra, the construction of the set of real numbers is fascinating. Although I can't remember the specific book I learned that from. Mathematics is mainly an extension of symbolic logic with aims on geometry and problem solving.
I am not fond of group and ring algebra because they are presented as rather complicated symbolism and don't connect well into the math you learn when younger. But other than that it is pretty much a logic subject too.

[Anonymous No.4768931]

OP here
I got this pdf

http://fs1.bib.tiera.ru/content//DVD-026/Ashbacher_C._Introduction_to_Neutrosophic_Logic_(2002)(en)(
143s).pdf

which covers classical, three valued, fuzzy (wtf?) and Neutrosophic Logic

and also

http://fs1.bib.tiera.ru/content//DVD-001/Barwise_J..,_Etchemendy_J._Language,_Proof_and_Logic
_(1999)(en)(587s).pdf

which I think is also a basic overview

Basically I found a good site in bib.tiera.ru for some Logic books. I'm going to try and plow through some of them along with the other info I've gotten from this thread

[Anonymous No.4768940]

>mfw logic is based off it's own principles and not definable by any outside means or axioms and therefore totally flawed from it's most basic concept

[Anonymous No.4768943]

>>4768940
what the shit?
logic is the way you use to deal with all axioms, if logic is flawed then all of math is

[Anonymous No.4768945]

>>4768940
>using logic to show that logic is flawed
your argument is flawed

[Anonymous No.4768947]

>>4768943
It is

[Anonymous No.4768948]

>>4768940
>mfw Doofus McRetard thinks he's making a clever point
>mfw this is so common that it doesn't warrant a face

[Anonymous No.4768953]

>>4768948
>mfw you have no rebuttal

[Anonymous No.4768950]

>>4768945
>>4768943
What do we use to define logic? Logic

By standards, we cannot use something to define itself.

i.e. Define: niggers - niggers from africa
^wrong

Define: niggers - jolly black folk from africa
^correct

Tell me how we define logic without using our own constructed(<---important word here) principles of logic

[Anonymous No.4768959]

>>4768950
we got axioms for AND and OR, we got them truth tables
then we use these to define IMPLIES, IFF, etc
and we can also use truth tables to verify MODUS PONENS, MODUS TOLLENS, etc
after that we dont even use truth tables anymore, just use these principles to prove the theorems we'd like to use

[Anonymous No.4768960]

>>4768940
The existence of quantum logic and quantum logic gates should be enough to back my point up

[Anonymous No.4768961]

>>4768953
A retard can be dismissed without rebuttal.
-Anonymous internet poster.

[Anonymous No.4768966]

>>4768961
mad

-You

[Anonymous No.4768964]

>>4768959
How was your first logics class?

That's not at all what I am saying. Actually it kind of defines what I am saying, in a sense. Logic defines the basic principles of not only mathematics, but philosophy as well. But these "morals" as we'll so call them, are based off of 'right or wrong' (one could say 1 or 0). But the standards to test these are based off of constructed axioms of logic not yet defined, so we are implementing our own definitions that aren't defined. Anyone who has taken a proofs course will know that this is a big no-no. One must not assume.

[Anonymous No.4768965]

>>4768953
>>4768950
>>4768940
Here we go
Sorry OP, looks like your thread is dead

[Anonymous No.4768969]

OP, if you don't want to be a nigger learn both viewpoints and decide for yourself before letting someone else decide./

[Anonymous No.4768974]

>>4768964
>not defined
wut?
AND and OR are defined mtfka
u best be trollin

[Anonymous No.4768978]

>>4768974
And pray tell how they are defined?

[Anonymous No.4768975]

>>4768965
why can't a normal discussion be had on the topic without children immediately dismissing?

[Anonymous No.4769003]

>>4768978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction#Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Definition

[Anonymous No.4769077]

>>4768965
>>4768965
ah well, nothing can last forever

I was pretty much done with this thread anyhow after finding those online resources. I was mainly hoping for advice on thinking logically (like Spock)

I'm fine with you /sci/entists using this thread for your fancy pantsy college degree arguments. I'll just sit back and watch

[Anonymous No.4769236]

>>4769003
You're an idiot..

>operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of false if and only if both of its operands are false.
>operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.

All of these standards are based off of our own logic. They are not comparable to anything and cannot be tested. I might as well take the belief that God exists because the Bible says so.

[Anonymous No.4769331]

>>4769236
dude their just saying
AND: both of these things are true
OR: at least one of these things are true
thats the axioms
you said they werent defined wtf, thats how they're defined, and if you say they use logic to define it ur in deep truble cuz its just two functions, they could be arbitrarily defined with just a venn diagram, they just "use logic" to simplify it since its so basic
i even drawed it just so u see no logic involved

[Anonymous No.4769350]

>>4769331
This retard has done gone made a point

[FinalState No.4769502]

some people like Einstein had an inability to feel visceral emotion or touch sensation.

This helps greatly, but I don't know how to do it on purpose.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4769507]

>>4763659
>Any vulcan
>logical
Nope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4769523]

>>4764741
>Hans Hoppe
>First to describe is-ought distinction.
My ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Try David Hume (or earlier).

[Anonymous No.4769531]

Did he decide upon most likely to survive, or least important group member?

[Anonymous No.4769554]

>>4769531
>>4769531
He never had to make the decision, some of the passengers were killed by the indigenous aliens and they lightened the load of the ship to get into orbit where they were found by the enterprise

[Sparrow !j0Oon93KwY No.4769911]

>>4769523
The quote doesnt say he was the first to DESCRIBE the problem. It says he SOLVED it!
I quoted the full paragraph to make it known it is not a universally accepted fact, but it is accepted by some of his peers. I have read extensively on the subject and happen to agree Hoppe solved the is-ought problem as final foundation for misesian praxeology and social order.

[Anonymous No.4769920]

>>4769507
Came here to say this.

Spock is a good model for being rational like Rambo is a good model for being a soldier. (Rambo would die very quickly IRL).

Actually, that doesn't feel like a strong enough comparison. Spock is *terrible* at being rational.

[Anonymous No.4769930]

>>4769911
(reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics )
At first glance this seems to be begging the question.
>Examples are "language has accepted intersubjective meaning", "Argumentative propositions need to be justifiable as true", ext. Such norms Hoppe terms the apriori of argumentation (APoA). The denial of these norms presupposed in the act of argumentation constitutes a performative contradiction, thereby voiding the argument of any meaning. Such norms underly any moral justification as any moral justification must take place in argument, as even to deny this would imply the denier is thus engaged in an argument.

Well, yeah. If you're arguing you're asserting that argument is worth doing. Duh.

That doesn't mean shit to the man with the spear who's about to kill you. Don't assume that people agree that nonviolent conflict resolution is universally considered the best - a cursory look at history shows no such consensus exists. This is a serious glossing-over of the is/ought distinction, right at the outset.

[Anonymous No.4769929]

>>4769920
Why is that?

[Anonymous No.4769932]

>>4769929
It gives the impression that "rational" means spouting out probabilities to four decimals when you can't possibly have enough evidence to give expectations with probability distributions that narrow. Oh, and that "emotionless" bullshit, too. That's not what being rational means at all.

This was already linked:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan
But these goes into more detail from a rationalist perspective, in rough order going from quick summary to detailed discussion:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Hollywood_rationality
http://lesswrong.com/lw/90n/summary_of_the_straw_vulcan/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/8ko/communicating_rationality_to_the_public_julia/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc

[Anonymous No.4769933]

Spock is just a character on a TV show man. He's not actually logical. And logic has nothing to do with being cold and calculating. It's just a stereotype.

[Anonymous No.4769943]

>>4769932
An interesting bit on the "emotion" part:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/59/spocks_dirty_little_secret/
>And Spock, ironically enough, is the reason I found it so difficult to grasp that last, vital piece:
>That to generate possibly-useful ideas in the first place, you must have some notion of what "useful" is!
>And that for humans at least, "useful" can only be defined emotionally.

[Anonymous No.4769961]

>>4763659
>decide who stays behind
The correct answer is the most expendable person. It doesn't mean the lowest ranking, it means the most useless.

[Sparrow !j0Oon93KwY No.4770134]

>>4769930
Because of your intent to defy the arguments of Hoppe, you simply tried to argue by denying the exact requirement to the whole conclusion:
Hoppe:
>if person is arguing with other parties => person implicitly accepts self-ownership of other parties
you:
>it is wrong because the man with the spear is about to kill you.
>people agree that nonviolent conflict resolution is universally considered the best
He is not argueing that.