/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9098998]

best books to learn argumentation/logic?

[Anonymous No.9099032]

>>9098998
>http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/08/16/lincoln-and-euclid/
>Lincoln wrote
>>In the course of my law reading I constantly came upon the word “demonstrate”. I thought at first that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not. I said to myself, What do I do when I demonstrate more than when I reason or prove? How does demonstration differ from any other proof? I consulted Webster’s Dictionary. They told of ‘certain proof,’ ‘proof beyond the possibility of doubt’; but I could form no idea of what sort of proof that was. I thought a great many things were proved beyond the possibility of doubt, without recourse to any such extraordinary process of reasoning as I understood demonstration to be. I consulted all the dictionaries and books of reference I could find, but with no better results. You might as well have defined blue to a blind man.
>>At last I said,- Lincoln, you never can make a lawyer if you do not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation in Springfield, went home to my father’s house, and stayed there till I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at sight. I then found out what demonstrate means, and went back to my law studies.

>Lincoln law partner Billy Herndon relates how Lincoln studied Euclid’s Elements:
>>He studied and nearly mastered the Six-books of Euclid (geometry) since he was a member of Congress. He began a course of rigid mental discipline with the intent to improve his faculties, especially his powers of logic and language. Hence his fondness for Euclid, which he carried with him on the circuit till he could demonstrate with ease all the propositions in the six books; often studying far into the night, with a candle near his pillow, while his fellow-lawyers, half a dozen in a room, filled the air with interminable snoring.

[Anonymous No.9100398]

bump

[Anonymous No.9100711]

>>9098998
read the fucking wikipedia page on informal logic, you obviously want rhetoric not higher logic.

[Anonymous No.9100758]

>>9098998
>1000% retard picture
learn formal logic and then kill yourself for being a rhetoric fag

[Anonymous No.9102335]

>>9098998
>learn argumentation

Get married

[Anonymous No.9102340]

[Anonymous No.9102345]

>>9098998
>>9100758
It's an "OK" stepping stone

[Anonymous No.9102353]

>>9102335
*Laugh tracks*

[Anonymous No.9102376]

>>9098998
Formal logic is good and all, but you don't always have a piece of paper to manipulate symbols, neither can you always turn real world situations into symbolic representations (We would have AGI by now if you could).

When you need to make rational decisions on the fly or to give actual rational arguments (If you wanna win debates it's another story. You need to be witty and charismatic rather than logical. You need to work the audience and actually USE the fallacies) then you need to have some kind of intuitional understanding of your limitations and the ways to overcome them. Basically you need to train your brain to do these things automatically in a heuristic sort of way. Symbols put layers of insulation between your consciousness and the actual implications of the relationships derived. Read this shit homie..

[Anonymous No.9102473]

>>9102340
>>9102376
What is it with logic and stones?

[Anonymous No.9102486]

>>9102473
>counting
>first currency >shiny rock
idk