In another post, she writes:

"Professor Paul Kreeft offers the following in his book "Socratic Logic", "I have never found anyone except a professional philosopher who actually used symbolic logic in an actual conversation or debate.""

I love that. She's writing on a computer that is enabled by extensive research and application of symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is at the very heart of the invention of the modern computer. It is hard to even imagine the concepts of computer science without symbolic logic or equivalent formalisms.

Reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg one year at the academy awards when she said (paraphrasing), "What good every came from the space program? It has given us nothing", as she was being broadcast live via SATELLITE!

I read it all the time, "Symbolic logic is stupid. It's a waste of time. It's just a bunch of philosophers and mathematicians too absorbed in their formulas to recognize the real world. Nobody needs it". As that is typed into a computer of which its invention, advancements, design, and implementation are filled to the brim with symbolic logic and the programming languages that have come from symbolic logic.

It sounds too harsh to describe someone stupid just by reading her few lines of the book reviews.
There could be just differences in opinions. There were certainly parts that resonated with my ideas about logic in the reviews.

If you looked at the new argument example given, I would have thought everything is clear on the sufficient and necessary conditions for the premises.

True definition, you asked. I was meaning the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise. So it could even qualify as a conclusion if it is self-evident enough, in which case, no further arguments are needed. But it is not possible to have a 100% true definition in many cases. One could only try to come up with the best true definitions.

The example arguments given in the OP and in the thread are simple enough to see the reasons how the premises could become a more sufficient definition by adding another definition i.e. dogs bark, and cats meow into the original definition which was a very wide definition (dogs are animals.)
I would have thought anyone would know what sufficient and necessary definitions as better premises are like.

True definitions are what philosophers are seeking to find and come up with in their thinking and debates process. Sometimes it can be found from defining the concepts, or when the definitions are not self evident enough such as God and God existence problems, then they make up the premises and go through the arguments supporting the premises to arrive at the conclusions.

OK - your comment on Valid arguments doesn't have to have false conclusions. But it would be judged as an inconsistent argument, if the supporting arguments are false or the premises way too loose, false or have no ground, even if valid. Due to that belief many logical debates seem to fall into quarrels rather than carrying on with the debating.

What I wrote here is mostly the points from Critical Thinking and Informal Arguments books, which look more practical and useful than the old traditional logic or symbolic logic in real life arguments and debate usage.

It sounds too harsh to describe someone stupid just by reading her few lines of the book reviews. — Corvus

I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see her list of conspiracy theory sources).

* That she is a nutjob doesn't in and of itself entail that her comments about logic are incorrect. Her comments about logic are incorrect anyway. Pointing out that she is a nutjob is just to anecdotally celebrate the great comedy of life.

There could be just differences in opinions. — Corvus

Not true. Her posted opinions broadcast that she has fundamental misunderstandings.

my ideas about logic — Corvus

I can't reasonably say that you shouldn't have ideas about the subject. But, as far as I can tell, you know virtually nothing about formal logic, so I don't how you would form ideas, especially ideas that resonate with wildly overopinionated views of a poster.

I would have thought everything is clear on the sufficient and necessary conditions for the premises. — Corvus

You could present your notion again so that it is salient for me, keeping in mind that I'm asking specifically for a definition.

true definition, you asked. I was meaning the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise. — Corvus

What is "the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise"?

Are you familiar with the basics of the subject of definitions in logic, even if only in non-formal sense? (For formal senses, I know that you know nothing about that, but maybe you'll get to it eventually. I recommend Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic' as the best explanation of formal definitions I've found.)

not possible to have a 100% true definition in many cases — Corvus

Inserting in your definition of 'true definition:

"not possible to have a 100% right and proper definition that fits for the better premise in many cases"

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

adding another definition i.e. dogs bark, and cars meow — Corvus

Those aren't definitions. They're predications. And I don't see why you think they address the invalidity of the original argument.

wide definition (dogs are animals.) — Corvus

That's not a definition. It's a predication.

I would have thought anyone would know what sufficient and necessary definitions as better premises are like. — Corvus

I have never seen that notion mentioned in my readings in logic, though I can't rule out that such mentions exist.

True definitions are what philosophers are seeking to find and come up with in their thinking and debates process. — Corvus

Yes, some important philosophy is concerned with that. But (1) we can ask such philosophers what they mean by 'true definition', (2) I would like to know your own definition. You merely deferred it to 'right and proper that fits the premises', which is hardly any more defining than 'true'. And it turns out that you conflate definition with predication, (3) In formal logic, we do need a formal, not merely open-ended philosophical, definition of 'definition'.

comment on Valid arguments doesn't have to have false conclusions — Corvus

No, I said they don't have to have true conclusions.

But it would be judged as an inconsistent argument even if valid? — Corvus

I'm sorry, but you don't understand even the basic concepts of validity and inconsistency.

Arguments aren't inconsistent. Sets of statements or statements themselves may be inconsistent.

Statements can be:

True (or at least true in a given model) [semantic]

False (or at least false in a given model) [semantic]

Logically true. True in every model [semantic]

Logically false. False in every model [semantic]

Contingent. True in some models and false in other models. [semantic]

Consistent. Doesn't imply a contradiction [syntactic]

Inconsistent. Imply a contradiction [syntactic]

Arguments can be:

Valid. Conclusion is entailed by premises.

Invalid. Conclusion is not entailed by premises.

Sound. Valid and all the premises are true.

And I don't recall seeing another word for this, so I use 'irrefragable':

Irrefragable. Valid and all the premises are logically true.

mostly the points from Critical Thinking and Informal Arguments books — Corvus

There are books that are as mixed up about the concepts as you are?

I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see her list of conspiracy theory sources).

* That she is a nutjob doesn't in and of itself entail that her comments about logic are incorrect. Her comments about logic are incorrect anyway. Pointing out that she is a nutjob is just to anecdotally celebrate the great comedy of life. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you had read anything philosophical in your life, should you not allow that other people could have different opinions about anything of their own? Not just logic? Just because she had different opinion about logic, that doesn't mean what she wrote is stupid, or she herself is stupid. When someone describes other people as stupid without justified ground, it reveals more about the describer and his psychological state and motives, than the other people who were described as stupid.

There are books that are as mixed up about the concepts as you are? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I feel that the Informal Arguments books have far more practical ideas than the simple traditional or symbolic logic. If you read the symbolic logic books again, then you will notice those books are full of boring dry useless contents, which naturally make normal people feel logic itself is just an useless boring dry subject, which makes people more confused, when trying to apply it to real world situations.

If you read a couple of old symbolic logic books, and take all the narrow concepts from there, judge other people based on the symbolic logic book authors world concept, then of course everyone will look stupid and mixed up.

But if you read any other philosophical books with an open critical mind, then you will realise that philosophy is far more than dog fighting with symbolic logic jargons.

You must try to look at the problems with your own reasoning first, and if needed, create your own definitions, if the book definitions are not adequate, and apply them to the real philosophical issue in the world.   I mean really, there must be more in life and philosophy, the world than those symbols and concepts in the books?  Logic must exist to assist in representing and clarifying the world and arguments, not the other way around. Your arguments sound to me the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts.

There is a huge philosophical and logical difference when you say,

X is stupid.
and
X is a book.

X is stupid means your feeling about X, not factual or logical statement. (one could be stupid on something, but genius in other subjects, and vice versa. I can give hundreds of real life examples on this. )

You heard, saw or read something about X, (or as you insist, you said it was what said about logic, not herself - by which some people might feel even more insulted getting her own writing described stupid by someone who doesn't really know anything about her) and made some private judgement inside your head, that X is stupid.

It is not an objective worldly fact, but your psychological state inside your head.
Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence?

But if you say, X is a book, then that could be an objective worldly statement, which can be proved objectively by anyone by looking at it, hearing the description about it.

I wouldn't spit out my own psychological statements which are private to me in the public, if it sounds unfair and groundless, because I know it will not be accepted as an objective and infallible statement by others, and it would be unfair insult to X, which could be even immoral act for anyone to impose on X.

That is the first and most basic criteria of not being mixed up in philosophical logic.

I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I meant to include the word 'don't'. I meant to say that I don't think I said she is stupid. And that is correct. I did not say she is stupid. I said that what she wrote is stupid.

should you not allow that other people could have different opinions about anything of their own? — Corvus

Of course. And we should allow that one may have good grounds for thinking that certain of those opinions are stupid and to say so. Moreover, I gave detailed explanation why I consider certain of her remarks to be stupid. More importantly, they're ignorant.

Surely you don't think all opinions are equally intelligent and don't deserve to be called out for being stupid opinions. Or do you?

Just because she had different opinion about logic, that doesn't mean what she wrote is stupid — Corvus

I already answered that. You skipped my answer so that you could merely reassert. What she wrote is stupid not merely because her opinions differ from mine, but on account of the reasons I specifically explained.

When someone describes other people as stupid without justified ground, it reveals more about the describer and his psychological state and motives, than the other people who were described as stupid. — Corvus

First, I didn't say she is stupid. I said that what she wrote is stupid. It's possible that she is intelligent but has blocks in understanding a certain subject. I sometimes write and say and do stupid things. And I have blocks in understanding certain things. But I am not stupid. And she might not be stupid.

Second, that someone says that another person wrote stupid things or even says the person is stupid, doesn't in and of itself entail very much about psychological states or motives. When I say that Donald Trump is a stupid, ignorant, grotesquely dishonest man, that's a true statement about Trump, and it hardly says much about me other than that I am willing to state an obvious fact.

I feel that the Informal Arguments books have far more practical ideas than the simple traditional or symbolic logic. — Corvus

First, I think informal logic is vitally important. I think it crucial to basic critical thinking in everyday life and in fields of study. I wish it were required starting in elementary school.

Second, my point went right over your head like a 747. You had conveyed some terribly mixed up ideas about logic and you said you got those ideas from a logic book. My point is that I bet the book didn't say those things but instead you misconstrued or misremembered the book. But if the book really did say those things, then, yes, that book is quite bad.

those [symbolic logic] books are full of boring dry useless contents, — Corvus

(1) The point of the books is to explain the subject. The books don't have to be entertaining.

(2) The books may be boring to you but not to many other people.

(3) I already commented on the utter usefulness of symbolic, including that you are now using a computer built from symbolic logic.

(4) Symbolic logic improves reasoning skills not just abstractly but in everyday life.

(5) Logic even makes me laugh sometimes. There is sometimes even true wit in the way the formulas are constructed and the way the proofs and arguments unfold. Even the prose of the authors. Halmos, Quine, and Boolos and others. Smullyan! Even the arch dryness of Alonzo Church. The ingeniousness and surprises delight my mind and my soul. The achievements of logicians and mathematicians inspire me. Their intelligence, creativity, standards of rigor and honesty are to be cherished. The enlightenment that logic embodies inspires me. And there is also the lore - the historical twists and turns, the biographies, the rivalries, the jokes, the epigrams, and all that stuff. The history of logic from ancient to modern, from all over the world and from many cultures.

(6) And there is philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy about logic, and philosophy of language. I can't even fathom the richness. And understanding those does require understanding something about the math and logic the philosophers are talking about. Also the application of formal logic to philosophy itself as a tool for clarifying arguments, for making the questions, problems and arguments rigorous, for providing certain objective contexts for philosophers to propose ideas, to inquire about them and to debate them.

(7) And the pure mental pleasure of understanding something you didn't understand before. The pure pleasure of an idea or proof finally making sense to you after you have struggled to grasp it for so long. And the pure mental pleasure of being introduced to new ideas; constructivism, intuitionism, free logic, multi valued logic, dialetheism ... ideas you never could have imagined. And they're all there just waiting for you to open the books, to read the journal articles, and if you're lucky, to take a class with a good teacher, and if you're really lucky, to take a class with one of the great minds of our modern world.

(8) Gaining the vocabulary and understanding of concepts so that you can talk about them with other people. So that you can present and explain ideas to other people, and so that you can learn from people that know more than you do. So that you can have a buddy to work on problems with.

you will realise that philosophy is far more than dog fighting with symbolic logic jargons. — Corvus

(1) Who do you think you're talking to? You are quite presumptuous to think you need to tell me that philosophy is more than symbolic logic. Moreover, I haven't posted anything that could be remotely suggestive that I think philosophy is just symbolic logic.

(2) 'dog fighting'. To what are you referring? Our discussion? You have been using terminology in a way that doesn't even make sense. I have given you corrections you could use.

(3) 'jargons'. The terminologies of symbolic logic are not mere jargon. The terminologies are from rigorous definitions. And logicians don't just throw around a bunch of words. Rather, they use terminology meaningfully and communicatively.

You must try to look at the problems with your own reasoning first, and if needed, create your own definitions, — Corvus

First I apprise myself of existing definitions. Then if I have concept that I haven't seen defined, then I do construct a definition. I do that in logic and math pretty often. And I understand the rules for definitions, especially as I understand their purpose - the criteria of eliminability and non-creativity.

and apply them to the real philosophical issue in the world — Corvus

I'm not a philosopher (I'm not a logician or mathematician either). Though I do think about certain questions and sometimes try to formulate them explicitly.

Your arguments sound to me the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts. — Corvus

That essentially is a HUGE strawman. I have never written anything that remotely suggests that "the world should exist for symbolic logic" You are ridiculous to say that my arguments even "sound like" that.

That essentially is a HUGE strawman. I have never written anything that remotely suggests that "the world should exist for symbolic logic" You are ridiculous to say that my arguments even "sound like" that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The inference was drawn from your comment about the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking books. The books cover wide range of topics to be dealt by the critical thinking system - philosophy, the world and arguments and debates and daily lives. It is far more interesting reads than the symbolic logic books. They are not some mixed up ideas, as you suggested.

X is stupid means your feeling about X, — Corvus

First, I didn't say anyone is stupid (other than Donald Trump in the previous post). Anyway, claiming that someone is stupid may not be just expressing a feeling. Donald Trump is a terribly stupid person, no matter what my feeling about that is.

one could be stupid on something, but genius in other subjects — Corvus

Of course. And not just in subjects but also in life. For example, Trump is a genius as a demagogue and as a big time grifter.

Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence? — Corvus

First, I didn't say the poster about the book is stupid. I said what she wrote is stupid and that she's an ignoramus (obviously regarding logic; she could be wonderfully informed about certain other subjects).

Second, I did explain very clearly how what she wrote is stupid and ignorant.

Third, it is a ridiculous standard that one should not be believed unless one were INFALLIBLE with evidence.

Fourth, talking about throwing around jargon. 'ontological'. Oh come on, descriptions about people aren't ontology.

It is not strawman at all. Again your private psychological judgement from your closed point of view. I am just responding to the parts which I feel I have things to say in the shortest time I can afford. I could sit down here, and go through all the points you put down in the posts, and reply to every point if I want to, and if I have time to. But I don't have time to do that. I must also work to make some living too.

Anyways, your argument points are all from the books, and anyone can read the books and learn. But it is up to the reader either to accept the book's points or go his own way and establish his own logic too. You seem to be denying the latter case, just blindly following the books and what those authors said. If I thought your argumental points are worth reading carefully with time and effort dropping the other tasks in daily life, then I would do so.

All your points from some old logic books, are not really practical or useful in real applications such as debating or clarifying philosophical problems. I do read books not to accept them blindly just because it says so, but my readings are always with a critical mind that if I agree I will accept, if not will abandon anyway.

The inference was drawn from your comment about the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking books. — Corvus

They are not some mixed up ideas, as you suggested. — Corvus

No, I did not claim they are mixed up ideas. I asked a question sarcastically. And you just now skipped my remarks about that in the post:

my point went right over your head like a 747. You had conveyed some terribly mixed up ideas about logic and you said you got those ideas from a logic book. My point is that I bet the book didn't say those things but instead you misconstrued or misremembered the book. But if the book really did say those things, then, yes, that book is quite bad. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And even IF (though I did not) lambaste a couple of books that would not remotely entail that "the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts."

And even IF (though I do note) thought that informal logic is not good, that would not remotely entail that "the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts", since I might think there are other subjects just as good as or EVEN better than formal logic.

To recap:

If I thought informal logic is hooey, then that doesn't entail that I think the world should live for formal logic.

If I insulted a couple of books, then that doesn't entail that I think the world should live for formal logic.

And I did not insult those two books. My point is that I bet you misunderstood them because I can't imagine that a book on informal logic could be as mixed up about the subject as you are.

And in fact, I love informal logic and I think it is vital. And I told you that in the post above.

talking about throwing around jargon. 'ontological'. Oh come on, descriptions about people aren't ontology. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ontology just means the study of the way things exist either in material or mental world, nothing sophisticated or complicated. Have you read any philosophy books? Could you please list what philosophy books you have read in your life?

But it is up to the reader either to accept the book's points or go his own way and establish his own logic too. You seem to be denying the latter case, — Corvus

QUOTE ME. Quote me where you think I claimed that one should not establish a new logic system. Hell, I encourage anyone who would do that.

You are strawmaning me yet again.

just blindly following the books and what those authors said. — Corvus

First, you have no statements from me that suggest that I have not read about logic critically or that I accept everything in the books I read. You are fabulating about me now.

Second, the large part of the material in textbooks in symbolic logic is not something one accpets or rejects but rather it's explanations of abstract systems.

I feel all of your points are from some old logic books — Corvus

First, how would you know what is old and what is contemporary in formal logic when you know nothing about formal logic?!

Second, the points that have come up in discussion are pretty basic, so it's not as if the context has changed so dramatically in recent years.

Third, that books are old doesn't entail that they don't hold valuable information or insight.

not really practical or useful in real applications such as debating or clarifying philosophical problems. — Corvus

On what basis would you say that when you don't know anything about the subject of formal logic?! Sheesh!

It is far more interesting reads than the symbolic logic books. — Corvus

I would not deny you reading what you find interesting and not reading what you don't find interesting. That has nothing to do with anything I've said. I am not even remotely debating what should be interesting to people. I don't even have any concept of what should be interesting to people. .

You are ridiculous. And what is really ironic that you are so hopped up about informal logic yet you are blowing it with informal logic left and right. You argue like a bum: blatant non sequiturs all over the place, ignoring refutations given you so that you can just go on to reassert and reassert what has already been refuted, strawmaning, and moving the goalposts

Ontology just means the way things exist either in material or mental world, nothing sophisticated or complicated. — Corvus

Please, commonplace discussion about whether certain people are stupid or not is not ontology.

Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me.

oh, you misunderstood again.
I never said that is ontology. Please read the post again.

I said, if you said X is a book, then it is possible to find the ontological ground for it.
X is stupid? It can be also argued that the statement existed inside your mind only - so depending on what your ontological stand is, it is also possible. Are you an idealist or materialist? See your old little symbolic logic has been confusing and muddling your thoughts.

Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You started this argument, not me. I am just responding to your arguments.

It doesn't matter whether you said she was stupid or what she said was stupid. The point was that your statement was your private mental feeling or judgement or state, not the external worldly fact or object. That is the only point.

you misunderstood again. — Corvus

Where did I misunderstand you previously?

Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence? — Corvus

"objective ontological infallible evidence"

Only by the wildest stretch of a notion of what 'ontological' means would we say that talking about whether someone is stupid involves ontological evidence. Or what even is ontological evidence as opposed to other evidence?

More importantly you skipped my remark that it is a ridiculous standard to hold that convincing should require infallibility. And as to the fact of what people believe, obviously people believe all kind of things, and often on good grounds, without basis of evidence that infallibly proves.

if you said X is a book, then it is possible to find the ontological ground for it. — Corvus

It's possible to find the empirical basis.

What is your distinction between empirical evidence and ontological evidence when it comes to talking about whether a certain person is stupid?

It can be also argued that the statement existed inside your mind only - so depending on what your ontological stand is, it is also possible. Are you an idealist or materialist? See your old little symbolic logic has been confusing and muddling your thoughts. — Corvus

Empty razzle dazzle followed by a gratuitous, false, and sophomoric attempt at an insult.

Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

You started this argument, not me. I am just responding to your arguments. — Corvus

You posted links to another poster on the Internet. I critiqued her posts and I said what I think of her postings overall, including that what she said is stupid. And then more back and forth between us in which I explained your errors in the subject. That doesn't warrant that I should be strawmanned or lied about.

It doesn't matter whether you said she was stupid or what she said was stupid. — Corvus

It matters to me that I not be represented as saying something I did not say.

The point was that your statement was your private mental feeling or judgement or state, not the external worldly fact or object. That is the only point. — Corvus

Obviously it's my opinion that what she said is stupid. But I gave ample explanation supporting that opinion.

Obviously it's my opinion that what she said is stupid. But I gave ample explanation supporting that opinion. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure. You can say whatever you want. You are a grown up adult responsible for your own acts and sayings and decisions. Only thing I was saying is that, it is not a philosophically justifiable, acceptable or meaningful statement. (1st conclusion) That's all.

So from that premise (subsequent premise from the 1st conclusion), whatever you put down as your arguments (even if they were true), the whole of your arguments and the conclusion was inconsistent and invalid from the theories of the Informal Logic. A very practical and useful theory and logic I would day :)

Only thing I was saying is that, it is not a philosophically justifiable, acceptable or meaningful statement. — Corvus

It's a statement about the quality of the content of a certain piece of writing. Such a statement would not ordinarily be subjected to full standards of philosophical justification.

And what is really ironic is that you are all over the place making claims about me that are factually incorrect, and for which you don't even have probable evidence. Moreover a whole bunch of informal fallacies from you.

And you continue to skip that I gave explanation for why I say what she wrote is stupid. What is the name for the fallacy of just skipping rebuttals and reasserting over and over what has already been rebutted?

That's all. — Corvus

No, that is not all. You're leaving out 'ontological' now and especially 'infallible'.

And I wonder whether you have an answer for my question: What do you take to be the difference between empirical evidence and ontological evidence?

The whole of your arguments and the conclusion was inconsistent and invalid from the theories of the Informal Logic — Corvus

What specific argument are you referring to? My argument that what she wrote is stupid? You haven't shown any fault in it. You haven't even mentioned any aspect of it other than its conclusion.

Informal logic deals with a wide range of considerations, but, I think, most saliently in its critical considerations ('critical' in the sense of criticism of arguments), non sequitur (in various forms as labelled with names for fallacies) and rhetoric and its persuasion.

You've not shown that my remarks are "invalid" in those respects. And I remind you that even such things as emotional language don't entail that other parts of an argument are not good. As for inconsistency, you have not shown that there is any set of my statements that entail a contradiction. You are full of bluster, and that's not all.

This is the limitation of the symbolic logic.  They dictate that every argument must fit into some set forms.   But most arguments in real life do not fit into any forms.  You must infer the premises and arguments from the dialogues between the protagonists. You can make up premises, arguments and conclusions from even newspaper articles, poems and simple daily conversations ... etc etc in informal logic.

Because of those limitations, many people think that symbolic logic is not practical for real life applications, to which I agree.

This is the limitation of the symbolic logic.  They dictate that every argument must fit into some set forms. — Corvus

I wasn't talking about formal logic; I was talking about informal logic.

And formal logic doesn't preclude that we have whatever variety of formal systems we want with different forms. And formal logic doesn't prelude that we may construct new system with new forms for arguments that can't be formalized in existing systems. And I don't think that logicians generally disallow that informal logic plays an important role in many contexts in which formal logic has not developed adequate methods or in which restriction to formal logic would be impractical.

Could it be that you just don't like formal logic and so you are responding to it, without knowing anything about it, with false preconceptions about it?

most arguments in real life do not fit into any forms — Corvus

A great amount of everyday reasoning could be formalized, but It is not claimed that all everyday reasoning fits into available forms in formal logic. Moreover, probably the main use of formal logic is in mathematics, computer science, linguistics, and also in the physical sciences, engineering, and in philosophy.

many people think that symbolic logic is not practical for real life applications, to which I agree. — Corvus

You're doing it again! Utterly skipping what has been presented to you so that you can just reassert and reassert over and over that which has already been rebutted.

Again, for about the fourth time now:

You are typing into a computer that could not have been conceived, engineered, and programmed without formal logic. How more "real life" can that be?

Your level of thinking is not much better than someone who never heard of written language and said, "What good are these letter shapes? They don't make sounds come out of my mouth,"

Your level of thinking is not much better than someone who never heard of written language and said, "What good are these letter shapes? They don't make sounds come out of my mouth," — TonesInDeepFreeze

Again, your private feelings and mental states, utterly groundless and unfounded. Rejected and committed to the bin, just like your 1st statement.

And as much as you talk about appreciating other people's points of view, wouldn't it occur to you that many thousands of intelligent mathematicians and philosophers have keen interest in the subject, so maybe there is something to it? Especially since your dogmatic rejection is based on not knowing anything about it?

I am not suggesting that you need to be interested in it. But your arguments about it and your claims about its inferiority and lack of application are based in sheer ignorance.

private feelings and mental states, utterly groundless and unfounded. — Corvus

A splendid description of your postings here.

And you're an abysmal interlocuter. No answers from you on a number of questions I've posed that are at the very heart of the discussion. And about your lying about me.

I am not suggesting that you need to be interested in it. But your arguments about it and your claims about its inferiority and lack of application are based in sheer ignorance. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Mother of all inferiority complex is from someone who describes other people or other peoples' writings as stupid on the basis of solely groundless personal feelings.

A splendid description of your postings here. — TonesInDeepFreeze

One couldn't be mistaken him for himself, and others. Please read the post again.

Mother of all inferiority complex is from someone who describes other people or other peoples' writings as stupid on solely groundless personal feelings. — Corvus

That is itself a groundless claim about my mental states.

And you skipped again that I did give specific grounds for claiming that her posts are stupid.