|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Formal and Informal Logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Interesting question but don't you think you've carried this far enough away from the topic?
You can always start yet another interminable thread if you want. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I have a big problem with this.
To me there really is no such thing as informal logic. Logic is logic. There are rules that are formally spelled out but even if one could not say what those rules are they can still make a logical argument and use correct logic. If I say, "that is not logical" it means that I think one of the "rules" has not been followed. I may not know what rule has been broken, I just know it doesn't seem logical. What if what "seems" logical to you doesn't "seem" logical to everybody else? Logic has two outcomes, proof or contradiction. In your, and robin's description of logic, you have neither. My main problem was that robin wanted to claim the finality of proof yet all he had was "that seems logical". If he wants to claim that his beliefs and thought process are valid personal interpretations of reality I have no problem with that. Once he decides to claim that he has "proven" that it is illogical to believe in evolution and God then he has to bring the noise or else he is going to get called on it. It is not logic. It is his opinion. It is only the height of arrogance for one to assume that yours is the one and only objective and logical worldview based on nothing more than what it "seems to be. Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
What if what "seems" logical to you doesn't "seem" logical to everybody else? Logic has two outcomes, proof or contradiction. In your, and robin's description of logic, you have neither. Well I can't speak for Robin but let me try again. What I was trying to say is that one doesn't have to "know" the rules of logic in a formal academic sense to present a logical argument. Note I do NOT equate "common sense" with good logic. Now, having said that, if someone disagrees that you have come to a logical conclusion, then you need to try again as I am doing now to explain how your thinking does result in that conclusion. Maybe you will be successful, maybe with the help of the other persion (if they are correct) you will indeed see the contradiction. That is how debate is supposed to work. If two people can't agree then maybe it would be time to consult a reference of logical fallacies to help determine where the problem lies. But I see some people trying to apply rules of logic here in this forum and they really don't know what the technical meanings are. They will say "strawman" and it really wasn't a strawman - a well defined logical term. I think we would be better off trying to debate in such a way as to get people to see the contradictions but not try to be so formal about it unless someone is really being obtuse about a clear logical fallacy - then maybe we should appeal to the technical term and define it as simply as possible with an example so that they can see the logical fallacy in their argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But there is, oddly enough, an inbuilt moral restraint that most of us feel to one degree or another, wouldn't you agree?
Most definitely. There's just no logical moral grounds for it. There's no such thing as a "logical moral ground." A moral ground, for example, would not be, "I might get caught." That's not a moral ground. This keeps some people from murdering other people, but it's no more moral that my thinking I should not go out in the storm because I might get electrocuted. I certainly agree with this last point, but what I don't get is why, if something is built into us, there are no logical moral grounds for it any more than if there were a God who gave a moral code, which you have said would have logical moral grounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I certainly agree with this last point, but what I don't get is why, if something is built into us, there are no logical moral grounds for it any more than if there were a God who gave a moral code, which you have said would have logical moral grounds. Beats me. Morality is a mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Beats me. Morality is a mystery. Ha ha. Come on. I was asking you why, according to YOU, built in morality does not have logical grounds but logic given by God would have logical grounds. I wanna know what you MEAN by that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Jazz's point is that you are substituting your own judgements for the actual rules of logic, which does add an element of subjectivity. That is OK so long as you know you are doing it and realise that what you are presenting may not be a fully logical argument. B
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I was asking you why, according to YOU, built in morality does not have logical grounds but logic given by God would have logical grounds. I don't know if logic given by God would have logical grounds or not. But it might. All I know is I can find no logical grounds for morality. But I will add that the MORAL FEELINGS that we have SEEM based on some standard that is solid and objective. They seem real. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I don't know if logic given by God would have logical grounds or not. But it might.
I keep seeing people post about "logical grounds". That makes no sense at all. In a logical deduction, one starts with certain premises, and deduces a conclusion. The premises are the grounds for the reasoning. But they are not "logical grounds". The logic starts after the premises have been stated. Logic, itself, needs no grounding. Arguments need grounding in evidence, but logic does not.
All I know is I can find no logical grounds for morality.
Since "logical grounds" is an oxymoron, that is to be expected.
But I will add that the MORAL FEELINGS that we have SEEM based on some standard that is solid and objective.
If there is an objective standard, then how is it that our President is still trying to justify the use of torture, while I find it evil and repugnant? Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Logical grounds" is not being used in the sense of "logical premises."
If we are creatures made in the image of God who are also fallen from grace because of sin, we would both show a moral sense that feels objective, and be flawed in our individual expression of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
"Logical grounds" is not being used in the sense of "logical premises."
Right. And therefore the adjective "logical" is completely spurious. This entire thread is supposed to be discussing the spurious use of "logic" and "logical". Why don't we just stop it.
If we are creatures made in the image of God who are also fallen from grace because of sin, we would both show a moral sense that feels objective, and be flawed in our individual expression of it.
LOL. What use is "feels objective", when "feels" is already a reference to the subjective. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What I was trying to say is that one doesn't have to "know" the rules of logic in a formal academic sense to present a logical argument. Of course not. I don't think anybody has claimed otherwise so far. It was never about robin not BEING ABLE to form a logical argument. It was about that he WAS NOT forming a logical argument yet claiming that he was.
I do NOT equate "common sense" with good logic. Now, having said that, if someone disagrees that you have come to a logical conclusion, then you need to try again as I am doing now to explain how your thinking does result in that conclusion. I disagree. If an argument is logically sound, a disagreement based upon logic can only be because there was no agreement on the premises or one person does not understand logic. For example, even though there is a formal construction of the integers, it is tiresome to produce that every time in a math class. Most of the time people take the premise that N = {...,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} is infinite. It is well accepted. With that premise you can PROVE that N is congruent to P the set of primes. This is a totally non-intuitive result but it is proven by logic as long as you accept that definition of N. Robin started with premises and definitions that were not accept or not objective. It is kind of hard to disagree with the integers but it is not obvious that the All-knowing/loving/powerful God of western tradition is the one that robin constructs in order to fit his reasoning. In the basic sense, he defines God to be a contradiction to exactly what he is trying to contradict. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Right. And therefore the adjective "logical" is completely spurious. Deerbreh got it, back some posts, in Message 147 and Message 153. You are insisting on a formal meaning of the term that ends up being false when you insist on it like that. Logic is simply the process of accurate reasoning. Formal logic is the attempt to codify this natural process. I would argue that this subjective sense of a compelling moral relation to everything in life that we all have does amount to a clue to something objective in our nature that is badly flawed but nevertheless real. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Robin started with premises and definitions that were not accept or not objective. It is kind of hard to disagree with the integers but it is not obvious that the All-knowing/loving/powerful God of western tradition is the one that robin constructs in order to fit his reasoning. In the basic sense, he defines God to be a contradiction to exactly what he is trying to contradict. You did not object to his premises, or any particular way his logic worked out, but to his claiming to use logic at all. Your discussion was -- and continues to be -- so muddled that your own claim to logic has to be called into question. Robin's characterization of the God of Western tradition was quite accurate. If you had a problem with it you should have focused on it instead of accusing him of an inability to think logically. You are in fact making no sense at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Robin started with premises and definitions that were not accept or not objective. NO, I didn't. I just limited my subject matter to the god of Western tradition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024