How would that determination be possible, if the very thing asked about requires the use of it? — Mww
Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work. — Corvus
Plus there is intuition,which is an immediate non discursive awareness or thought — Protagoras
Not to say the most important one. — dimosthenis9
How could you know that? — dimosthenis9
Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? — dimosthenis9
It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. — dimosthenis9
If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it. — dimosthenis9
That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it. — dimosthenis9
Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse. — T Clark
Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? — dimosthenis9
Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? — dimosthenis9
How you moderate your actions then if not logical? — dimosthenis9
And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then? — dimosthenis9
Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it — T Clark
And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. — T Clark
It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? — T Clark
I would never guess that you were engineer with your statements. I was counting engineers on my side at that "fight" for Logic. Surprised really. — dimosthenis9
That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better! — dimosthenis9
Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic? — dimosthenis9
And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark
I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course. — dimosthenis9
It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it. — T Clark
And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark
All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. — dimosthenis9
Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models. — T Clark
But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least? — dimosthenis9
The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal — T Clark
Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable? — dimosthenis9
I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project. — dimosthenis9
problems that people (both in general as society but as individuals also)find extremely difficult to think Logically. — dimosthenis9
Logic a great way to tame emotions? — dimosthenis9
bringing such chaos in societies — dimosthenis9
the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level. — T Clark
As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.
Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.
Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons. — T Clark
Till then I stick to my point. — dimosthenis9
How can you rule over someone who doesn't acknowledge your authority? — dimosthenis9
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.