They're not. They reveal fundamental misunderstanding, confusions, and ignorance of the writer. — TonesInDeepFreeze
My criticism of the rants (those are not reviews) is independent of the books. What she said about logic is stupid, no matter what is in the books. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Then I worked through an introductory book on symbolic logic, and I learned a lot. — TonesInDeepFreeze
But I will say that I just don't know whether I would have done as well with Kalish/Montague if I hadn't previously read that other symbolic logic book that gave me some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction — TonesInDeepFreeze
So, it demonstrates how insufficient premises render wrong conclusions in the argument, even if they look valid.
Yes. You do not need extra definitions. The original definitions are quite sufficient. Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Cats are not dogs. Those last three statements are consistent. You need the diagram and the truth table. — Cuthbert
It was a demonstration OP for showing that logical arguments in philosophical debates do need solid sufficient definitions and premises so that they will arrive at infallible True conclusions.
Truth tables and Venn diagrams are great tools too. But more for the educational purpose, I feel. — Corvus
As usual, it comes down to what the scribbles point to, or how they are defined. — Harry Hindu
I like to solve these types of problems using a computer programming language. In every language, the variables need to be defined in order to use them. In every logical process the variables used refer to something in the world. — Harry Hindu
Also, if you find that some logical proposition produces a false conclusion, its because so other logical fallacy was made. All logical rules have to be followed - no cherry-picking. — Harry Hindu
You can always use coding to restrict users to certain conditions and choices, thereby limiting the amount of coding you have to write that checks for "all possible" conditions.You know fine well, that to check some complicated conditions, the statements needs many lines of coding to check for all the possible conditions. The use of the variables are essential in the programmings. — Corvus
Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic.Yeah, that was what I have been saying all along. If you get your staring definitions and also any of t he premises wrong, then you can end up with some crazy conclusions as Truth. Dangerous things for sure. — Corvus
Did you read this :point: [url=https://thephilosohttps://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809phyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809]New Caledanian Crow[/url] — TheMadFool
Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic. — Harry Hindu
No I haven't. I have no much knowledge on the medieval time religious topics. I must go back to Russell's History of Philosophy and do some more readings on the chapter to be able to follow the thread, I think. — Corvus
Forget I even mentioned it. It was irrelevant to the discussion. — TheMadFool
I thought she was not saying Logic is stupid. — Corvus
Rather, she was saying that the books don't mention some important points in Logic. — Corvus
She quotes a few philosophical texts — Corvus
What is your the other symbolic logic book before the K/M — Corvus
the OP argument problem stems from the premise that there is limited scope for the definition of dogs and cats. — Corvus
it demonstrates how insufficient premises render wrong conclusions in the argument, even if they look valid. — Corvus
true definitions — Corvus
you just need to add more definitions into the premise making it sufficient and necessary condition. — Corvus
I was wondering whether the diagram method is only OK for simple arguments with just 1 or 2 premises. — Corvus
it is possible for the arguments to come to the true conclusion, had the premises came up with the complete set of sufficient and necessary propositions — Corvus
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.