why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? — Shawn
Yet, it occurs so little on these forums. — Shawn
It's considered antisocial, or plain rude, to point out a logical error. Criticism is met with indignation, instead of explanation. — Banno
So, why isn't there more concern about the proper form an argument should display as a bona fide argument presented in logical form? — Shawn
In logic, logical form of a statement is a precisely-specified semantic version of that statement in a formal system. Informally, the logical form attempts to formalize a possibly ambiguous statement into a statement with a precise, unambiguous logical interpretation with respect to a formal system. In an ideal formal language, the meaning of a logical form can be determined unambiguously from syntax alone. Logical forms are semantic, not syntactic constructs; therefore, there may be more than one string that represents the same logical form in a given language.
The logical form of an argument is called the argument form of the argument...
...To demonstrate the important notion of the form of an argument, substitute letters for similar items throughout the sentences in the original argument.
Original argument
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Argument form
All H are M.
S is H.
Therefore, S is M. — Wikipedia
When was the last time you saw an honest post in the philosophy of logic sub-category? — Shawn
Many if not most arguments here are either straight-forward or fallacious (proving one's hypothesis, etc.) — jgill
I mean the syntax or grammer of a sentence expressed in logical form. And, SEP has a better entry on logical form.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/ — Shawn
We can express this point by saying that these inferences are instances of the following form: B if A, and A; so B. The Stoics discussed several patterns of this kind, using ordinal numbers (instead of letters) to capture abstract forms like the ones shown below.
If the first then the second, and the first; so the second.
If the first then the second, but not the second; so not the first.
Either the first or the second, but not the second; so the first.
Not both the first and the second, but the first; so not the second. — SEP
I'll say it again - most of the discussions we have are not easily expressible in these kinds of formats, e.g. you didn't express your OP in logical format. Also, you specifically used an example of an empirical question - the identity of the evening and morning stars - but the format you are discussing only relates to deductive reasoning. — T Clark
I thought you were referring to the discipline of philosophy and not what mostly happens on TPF. — 180 Proof
most of the discussions we have are not easily expressible in these kinds of formats — T Clark
Does knowing we had five apples, added ten, and now have fifteen apples really get us very far towards a topography of vision, symbol, quantity, extension, existence, etc.? — kudos
If philosophical analysis is not concerned with matters of empiricism, such as whether the morning star and the evening star are really just the same thing, then why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? — Shawn
Logical form is not sufficient to determine if an argument is sound. — PhilosophyRunner
I think a sound argument is based on a sound logical form. Aren't you referring to 'validity'? — Shawn
Well, the premises can be false and the argument can still be sound, upon inspection. But, a valid argument requires true premises. — Shawn
Valid deductive arguments are those where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion: the conclusion cannot but be true if the premises are true. Arguments having this property are said to be deductively valid. A valid argument whose premises are also true is said to be sound. — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.