Talk:Logic

Expand discussion of China and India?

There's plenty to do! Here are some resources to start:

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/early-modern-india/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohist-canons/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

Dan Cottrell (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation talk

I think some of the comments have been moved I found an old contribution in the talk page of the disambiguation, but I amsure it was originally written on the main article. Can someone please explain, in their own words, the history of the article and what happened? Kathybramley (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This is my text from the disambiguation talk page: What about logic in the more everyday use in speech? When someone, like a doctor, suggests you are not as logical as you think, what do they mean? What exactly? How can you challenge or assess that? I'm not sure the mere mention of cognitive psychology really covers it, not from a user-friendly way. I imagine people using this page to get ideas if the word 'logic' has come up as an accusation of lacking it. What about logic and logical structure in essay writing/general academic writing? (I was always getting comments 'could be more logically structured' through school up to degree, but never once did anyone describe 'logical'). It is in this case, logical structure is equating to outline structure - starting with a distilled strong central/over-arching idea and 'exploding' it into constituent parts in a step-by-step fashion. I want a link from this page to an appropriate page. I'd like it for both these instances of important areas of use that are not yet included. ...not sure I am brave enough to yet though (quite a new user I am). Ideas and help? Comments? Kathybramley (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Kathybramley (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Induction as Logic?

I think that in general, inductive reasoning is not considered logic; that is purely restricted to deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning commits the inductive fallacy and is illogical. To give an example of inductive reasoning and why it is flawed, consider the following example: a hen who is fed and taken care of by a farmer day after day. The hen could inductively conclude, that the farmer will continue to do so based on this observation, corresponding to a premise in deductive reasoning. However, one day the hen is butchered by the farmer and fed to the family. Clearly the conclusion the hen came to was flawed -- it assumed constancy in the universe. This is the flaw of induction and why it should not be compared so closely with deduction. This article should be edited to express that. MONODA (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Dear MONODA...your hen pretended to know the future. Logic deals with the relationship between two static pictures in the 'now'. KK (78.146.69.242 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

Inductive logic is a branch of logic. It generally deals in evaluating uncertainties and probabilities, and historically gave rise to modern probability theory. ----Tashadox (talk)

"Logic garnet"

A new user has added an intriguing picture of a so-called "logic garnet", claiming that it's an "early device used to determine the logical consistency of a given claim". We don't have any article directly on this, but we do have one on Shea Zellweger, who seems to be the inventor. Zellweger was born in 1925, so the thing can't be that "early" really.

I don't mind the picture, and a mention, somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure that an idiosyncratic notation deserves to be placed so prominently at the top. There are lots of notational systems that have accumulated followings of devoted fans but never really caught on in the wider world (e.g. Sheffer stroke, Laws of Form). --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MAJOR problem with this article

The first two sentences of this article are self-contradictory.

"Logic is the study of valid reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities."

This is entirely wrong. The study of valid reasoning is most definitely NOT used in most intellectual activities.

Are you people okay with me changing it in a major way?

Another contradiction, still in the opening paragraph, is mention of "The study of logic". Since "logic" has been defined in the first sentence as "The study of valid reasoning" then "the study of logic" would be the study of the study of valid reasoning. This is ridiculous. Am I the only person who can see this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolway (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but you should only make a change if you have a good source. I'll look for some authoritative pronouncement on the subject of whether logic is a study or that which is studied.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that logic is the study of (some kinds of) argument is well-established. See Definitions of logic. There isn't much of a paradox here: logic is primarily a study of arguments, but it is also the name we give to systems of inference that arise from that study.

I do find myself visiting these talk pages mostly to point out how the logic article has been in slow decline since 2009, and feel apologetic for that, but compare the lede from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic&oldid=300599816 to that of the current article: that both better avoided making needless assertions (the substantial assertion it does make not now made is that formal systematic study of argument begins in Ancient Greece, not India or China), and did a better job of delivering the things a lede should deliver, such as a clear definition of the topic matter. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical Absolutes

Should this topic be discussed ? https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes.htm i think that its something that could be included in this topic, otherwise maybe it should have its own page Aperseghin (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE it seems to be touched on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought Aperseghin (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My logic

Science(knowledge), is acquired by all the entities in the diagram.

Philosophy (love of wisdom), I believe 'love of wisdom' is inherent in acquiring knowledge, as otherwise, there is no reason to want knowledge. To get knowledge, you must first, have wanted it, in the first-place. (the purpose/knowledge wanted is irrelevant) (RVIEW)

In an abstract way, (although the concepts are already abstract...) to have knowledge, you must at least have be able to 'know' something...or, anything...

What is something/anything? The/a universe - what makes up a universe? The universe is made up of, 'physics', and 'meta-physics'.       (MST UPDATE)

Which I then class into two separate forms of base-logic. Rational-logic, and irrational-logic. or intelligence, or intellect... (MST UPDATE)

My source? Hopefully, the people of Wikipedia see it as credible...

Caption text

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickid123 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)