... why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? — Shawn

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html

I don't know if you're in agreement with this statement; but, the type of analysis that I see professed by other members, claiming to do analysis, is tantamount to opinion bashing and, sophistry.

It's rare to see solid arguments formed in first order logic or in epistemological terms clearly stated.

why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? — Shawn

Yet, it occurs so little on these forums. — Shawn

Because most of what happens here is posturing rather than philosophy? Despite the pretence of doing philosophy, folk absolutely hate having their ideas exposed to analysis. Setting out the logical structure of a post is met with blank stares or downright hostility. It's considered antisocial, or plain rude, to point out a logical error. Criticism is met with indignation, instead of explanation.

It's considered antisocial, or plain rude, to point out a logical error. Criticism is met with indignation, instead of explanation. — Banno

I'll quote you on that. Yet, in the spirit of doing philosophy of all places, on a philosophy forum, I don't think it should be interpreted as what you describe.

All that needs to be stated is that we're on a philosophy forum where despite its appeal , descriptive discourse is allowed, one ought to appeal to logic more often...

When was the last time you saw an honest post in the philosophy of logic sub-category?

I mean, philosophy shouldn't be any harder than people impressed with the thought that it's all about grounding metaphysics or bashing opinions, should it?

The place is more a publishing house for fiction than a place for rational discussion.

And I'm not talking about the short story competition...

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

What do you mean by "logical form." This is what Wikipedia says:

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

Is that what you mean? Or do you mean using logic symbols like ⇒, →, ⊃, ⇔, ≡, ↔. Wikipedia provides a list of logic symbols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

Most of the discussions we have here on the forum are not easily expressible in these types of format.

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.)

Be careful what you wish for. If you conjure up @TonesinDeepFreeze be prepared for a serious technical discussion.

What do you mean by "logical form." — T Clark

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/

Many if not most arguments here are either straight-forward or fallacious (proving one's hypothesis, etc.) — jgill

How are they straightforward? They seem obscure and vague mostly. Indicating a ernest amount of laziness in how one decided to express themselves.

Again, philosophy is not difficult with the right tools.

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

This is from the link you provided:

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.

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

So, I suppose I'll try and say it again. If we are concerned about valid inferences and sound reasoning, what's wrong with displaying the logical form of an argument? I mean, you did take the example of syllogisms from the Wikipedia article on logical form as an example? Furthermore, it seems that displaying the logical form of a sentence doesn't only apply to deductive reasoning...

Yeh, but to be fair -- I like that about this place. I like that it sits in-between, so I don't feel so bad about exploring odd thoughts or things I know will land me in fallacious positions as I think through them.

It's one of the reasons, when I feel I'm able, I like fielding the re-occurring questions that pop up. I, too, make these mistakes, and so it's something nice to be able to point out to those who are wanting to not make them.

I thought you were referring to the discipline of philosophy and not what mostly happens on TPF.

The place is more a publishing house for fiction than a place for rational discussion. — Banno

:up:

I thought you were referring to the discipline of philosophy and not what mostly happens on TPF. — 180 Proof

Afterwords, or after the fact I realized what you say as true. With notable exceptions within the thought of Spinoza or TLP or within academia. Yet, there are some examples, such as, scholasticism which employed syllogistic logic to a great extent with little to show for also.

Although I often feel refreshed at the use of formal logic for philosophical purposes, doing this mechanically runs the risk of risk of losing sight of the general philosophical project. The technocentric post-industrial mental complex treats the use of all advancement as extensions of our robotic limbs. This ideological view makes it an absurdity to do work for nothing. That – I think – runs against the grain of its main premise of philosophy that allows us to escape this cell by re-awakening ourselves to the contingencies of ideas and precepts.

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.?

most of the discussions we have are not easily expressible in these kinds of formats — T Clark

Then so much the worse for those arguments.

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

Yes.

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

Because analysis of propositions without content is empty and empirical content without formalism is blind?

I think this is because the majority of philosophical disagreements on this forum occur not in the logical structure, but rather in the premises for. Or indeed in the background knowledge required to link the premise to the conclusion in the case of inductive logic. Logical form is not sufficient to determine if an argument is sound.

Even the majority of logical fallacies, are not formal logical fallacies related to the structure. They are context dependent (and hence the arguments about whether the context).

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'?

I think a sound argument is based on a sound logical form. Aren't you referring to 'validity'? — Shawn

As far far as I know, a valid argument is one with correct form. The conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true (and hence whose conclusion is also true).

But the difference lies within the truth of the premises themselves with respect to validity.

Yes?

I don't understand, do you mind restating that question? The truth of the premises in respect the validity of the argument? Or the truth of the premises in respect the validity of the premises by themselves?

Well, the premises can be false and the argument can still be sound. But, a valid argument requires true premises.

Well, the premises can be false and the argument can still be sound, upon inspection. But, a valid argument requires true premises. — Shawn

No I'm saying it is the exact opposite. I.E swap "sound" with "valid" in the above sentence.

All postman are Martians
Mark is a Postman
Therefore Mark is a Martian

That is a valid argument
That is not a sound argument

Sorry, I must be professing an empiricist argument with what I meant.

We can have logically sound arguments that are empirically false, yet still be sound according to our truth tables. Does that make sense?

Can you give an example because I'm finding it difficult to visualize such an argument. An example may help.

I'm only separating logic from empiricism. Take for example the various syllogism's that one can use in making an argument. We can use them, as did they used them after Aristotle, and could come up with sound arguments. However, their validity is based on empirical observation.

I did Google the distinction, and it seems different than what I say, but does what I said make sense?

I'm afraid I still don;t understand this line:

"We can have logically sound arguments that are empirically false, yet still be sound according to our truth tables."

Take my example:

All postman are Martians
Mark is a Postman
Therefore Mark is a Martian

That is a valid argument.

That is a sound argument IFF "All postman are Martians" is true AND "Mark is a Postman" is true.

Now you can create a logic table and mark both those true. But I'm not sure many on this forum or outside are interested in that truth table when it goes against empirical observations.

Thus if you were to get a post in the forum about whether Mark is a Martian, the discussion will not focus on the structure of the logic, but rather on how we can know whether all postmen are actually Martians. The actual logic structure is rarely where disagreement occurs.

I'm sorry; but, in logic empirical validity is a guarantee for validity of an argument, not soundness. Soundness only rests with logical form, as I have come to understand it.

From SEP:

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/

it is like I said.