Ok - I'd be more comfortable calling that authoritarian, a word I nearly used in the place of "conservative" in what you quoted. The normatively of telling someone "This is how you ought think..." differs from the normatively of "If you think in that way, then this will be your conclusion..." That is, the logics here are systematic, not arbitrary - what "full-blown logical pluralism" might be remains unclear until Leon addresses the issue instead of my failings. If Aristotle showed long ago why attacks on PNC cannot work it should be a small thing to show why paraconsistent logic is flawed; yet instead it is an area of growth.I suppose I was thinking of conservatism as something more along the lines of 'there is one truth and it can be discovered by philosophy'. — Tom Storm
Yep, interesting stuff. In classical logic, A,~A ⊨ B (From A and not A you can derive whatever you want). This would cause all sorts of problems. Paraconsistent logics remove this problem, usually while maintaining the Law of Noncontradiction. One can get a handle on the idea by looking at many-valued logics.A lot to think about here. — Tom Storm
To be a law of logic, a principle must hold in complete generality.
No principles hold in complete generality.
There are no laws of logic. — Banno
She does not wish to conclude that there are no laws of logic, and so argues that a principle need not hold in complete generality. Instead, they hold in given logics. — Banno
There is the "discourse of language" which is constrained by the "discourse of the mind — Count Timothy von Icarus
↪Cheshire Yep - although the rigour is predominantly provided by mathematics rather than syllogism. And I sympathise with the conceit that science is essentially liberal. — Banno
Specifically, it's provided by Statistical mathematics which reaches for an approximation to the truth. Which is probably why it's reliable, unlike syllogism which fails to account for unknown error. Which points to my earlier misadventures of pointing out that knowing A; entails the possibilty of being wrong about A and asserting it is true. The problem isn't in the system of logic but the flux of the evidence.
'What is, is' only works if you're correct about what it is initially. — Cheshire
A thought came to mind about Kant's (still useful) way of breaking up the world. Logic is a way of recognizing rules. This is how information is parsed out. Scientific principles regard distilling correlations to a point of being able to distill rules. The two logics are different- one has to do with language pattern, and one has to do with empirical patterns. However, they are both intertwined, as the rules of logic seem embedded in language, something that comes prior to the empirical correlation-distillation that takes place in the cultural practice of scientific research. — schopenhauer1
The framing in the OP seems to lean towards the idea that "logic" is "formal logic." Thus, we speak of "languages," "systems," and "games" and difficulties within or between formalisms as problems for "logic." — Count Timothy von Icarus
The framing in the OP seems to lean towards the idea that "logic" is "formal logic." Thus, we speak of "languages," "systems," and "games" and difficulties within or between formalisms as problems for "logic." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Formal logic is about "ways of speaking," but logic is not about "ways of speaking" tout court. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Anyhow, to the extent that logical nihilism will tend to imply that things have no causes, that there is no metaphysical truth, etc. I think it's open to the criticism that:
A. This seems demonstrably false on all the evidence of sense experience, the natural sciences, etc.;
B. No one actually has the courage of their convictions on this matter and really acts as if causes and truth are "just games," and;
C. This makes the world inherently unintelligible and philosophy pointless. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Plus, to the extent that someone still tries to justify logic on "pragmatic" grounds it seems to be the case that any "pragmatic" standards bottom out in arbitrariness, there being no truth about what is truly a better standard or what truly ranks higher on any given standard. Hence appeals to the "usefulness of certain games," are unsupportable. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If we follow the peripatetic axiom that "nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses," my question is "where are the paradoxes in the senses or out in the world?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
I have never experienced anything both be and not be without qualification, only stipulated sign systems that declare that "if something is true it is false," and stuff of that sort. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Not having experienced it so far doesn't rule it out, though. — frank
Right, and it is very important that we keep our eyes peeled for square circles. They are probably lurking just around the corner. — Leontiskos
I was looking for a 'it can't happen because it's illogical.'
Care to step up to the plate? — frank
A new term to me - no mentions in SEP or in IEP. Not just no article, but no use of the phrase. so I googled it. A couple of blogs, none of them very clear, and with a few obvious errors. Merriam-Webster gives "logic that is valid within a certain universe of discourse or field of application because of certain peculiar properties of that universe or field —contrasted with formal logic". I gather it means informal logic or possibly applied logic....material logic... — Count Timothy von Icarus
Granted it seems intuitively accurate, but what logic prevents it? You could cut a square out on the back of a circle. And argue which side defines the object. — Cheshire
A thought came to mind about Kant's (still useful) way of breaking up the world. Logic is a way of recognizing rules. This is how information is parsed out. Scientific principles regard distilling correlations to a point of being able to distill rules (of the empirical). The two logics are different- one has to do with language pattern, and one has to do with empirical patterns. However, they are both intertwined, as the rules of logic seem embedded in language, something that comes prior to the empirical correlation-distillation that takes place in the cultural practice of scientific research.
A paradox is not the type of thing that has a location.
Well, in terms of priority, it would seem that perception is prior to speech, both in evolutionary terms and in the development of the individual. But then we would do well to remember Aristotle's dictum that "what is best known to us," are the concrete particulars (the "Many") whereas what is "best known in itself" are the generating principles/principles of unity (the "One"). Prima facie, it seems that the intelligibility of being must be prior to knowledge in the order of being/becoming, while the reverse is true in the order of becoming. — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.