Talk:Logic

Added Persia, to ancient civilizations studying logic.

I think Avicienna's Contribution to the study of logic, makes persia relevant. In fact, that makes all Muslim philosophers relevant. The main article unfairly makes no mention of any Muslim philosopher.

Questions

"A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. " I remember saying something like this. Do any other textbooks mention this? The standard one is 'premises not true with conclusion false'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I wrote “A valid argument is one where there is a connection between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusions that is informally signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.” ‘Connection’ was changed to ‘specific relation of logical support’. Peter Damian (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that User:Jbessie is Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stout whose interests include mathematical logic, the philosophy of science etc, so presumably knows what he is talking about! I think the intro reads fine. Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good article status

I'd like us to get the article into shape to nominate it for good article status. There are a few things that need to be done before we nominate it:

1. The readability of several sections could do with improvement.

2. The article needs to be better referenced.

3. The article could use a few more illustrations.

I value all assistance with these.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations for logic? I will try and put some time aside for the words. Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Propositional logic lends itself naturally to illustration by Venn diagrams and predicate logic by analogy can be illustrated with one of Peirce's existential graphs. Term logic could be illustrated with the square of opposition. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Readability

"According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure."

What does this mean? Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(I think what it is getting at is that instead of a fixed two-term + copula structure, we now have a flexible structure where sentences can embed other sentences etc. The trick is to explain this to the average reader such as myself). Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be better to reverse the order of the bullet points, starting with 'the modern view is more complex', then showing how the simple predicate analysis of the Aristotelian sentence can expand outwards indefinitely. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the order in which the concepts are introduced: hopefully the text is now easier to digest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Confucius

Please remove the photo of Confucius. He was NOT a logician. What is his contribution in logic study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicmind7 (talk • contribs)

@Logicmind7: The photo of Confucius is not there because he is a logician. It's there because this article is part of the series of philosophy-related articles. That image was made to be placed in all articles of the series. Amccann421 (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, the problems is that ..... He was NOT a logician, and he was NOT a great philosopher.

There were many greater logicians and philosophers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicmind7 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

But greatness is not required to have your picture in Wikipedia. I think the best thing you can do, is leaving a message and hoping to get a discussion started at Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a philosophical question: What constitutes a great philosopher? Dhrm77 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm... being there when there just happens to be lack of great scientists to really answer the questions at hand? - DVdm (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal logic

Usually the term "personal logic" means differentiation from the norm supposedly positive for the believer as he/she claims. Personal logic thinkers usually have very low iq test performance because they don't try to understand the cosmos, even if they claim so, simply to simplify the cosmos in order it fits inside their small brains. Physicists for example might have different opinions, but they don't try to create a personal logic, but to understand the actual world. Neuroscientists and psychologists study the aspects of personal logic, not to believe in it, but in order they understand the brain. Personal pseudo-logicians claim that their views are rare and unique, because there are infinite ways to be wrong than try to be reasonable. Personal logic isn't something rare or unique statistically though, even if the quasi-thinkers claim so. Everyone has partially an apparent "personal logic", but the term means shallow causal and biased thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:7800:C87:6EB1:1B01:90D7 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find any sources on the term, can you provide any? Paradoctor (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

https://www.matrixwissen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=808:what-relevance-does-my-personal-logic-have-with-respect-en&catid=204&lang=en&Itemid=794

but this researching dialogue isn't yet complete

shallow thinkers don't understand for example that the Property of Eternal Existence of God is greater than God, because God was only able "to create" the imperfect man, not "to ensure" the eternal existence of God. "To ensure" God is more important than "to create" the imperfect man. The "Eternal Existence of God" is purely a divine property, but God is not a pure property, because he is behaviourally anthropomorphous via his love, hate, punishments, teachings etc., also His story is tellable. God created the imperfect man a. because he couldn't create man perfect, b. because He morally couldn't accept the human perfection for some fundamental moral personal reasons He didn't reveal, c. because He cannot control "free will", if He controls it then it isn't free will, thus free will has some inherent Randomness. Thus the actual God isn't God, but 1. Property of Eternal Existence of God, 2. the Random part of free will || or for some scholars either free will either randomness alone, because it is fundamentally out of reach of God. Of course God can control free will by stopping it, but this is the death of free will and not some actual control, thus free will is inherently outside the reach of God, and as a pure Property totally superior than Him. Free will would exist if only all people had absolutely the same brain functionality and regional sizes, the same quality of hormones, food, family relationships, education, culture, etc. also if the Random part of free will didn't exist. If thus there isn't free will because people start from various corporeal, mental and social backgrounds, that inherent Randomness is God, and not free will itself. God is permanently good, and free will even for saints sometimes leads to bad thoughts and actions, thus God hasn't free will, thus isn't God, because He teaches goodness originated only from free will is Divine and actual. Thus neither a. "God" or b. the "Property of Eternal Existence of God" are actual Gods, and according to God, the only actual God is Randomness or more specifically Probabilism (the fact that probabilities are cosmically crucial) itself. If God's thoughts have this deepest causality, then He doesn't exist at the mentally (not corporeally) human form which Islam, Christianity and other religions teach, and we have to focus in non-metaphysical physics in order we gradually understand the world. Physics is more Divine, because accepts the world as physical (or potentially physical via the virtual but non metaphysical particles). Religion separates the world in the natural and the supernatural realms, even if some priests don't accept this terms, they accept some fundamentally non explainable differentiation of the phenomena. Thus Religion is fundamentally Blasphemous for forcing the world to change and not for trying to understand it, without to support at a deep causal level (only a shallow and biased one) that attitude. Thus according to Religion, Religion must be ceased, for it is fundamentally Blasphemous.