The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 3) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Dec 29, 07 - 10:01 PM |
Logic Correction
**********LOGICAL ERROR********** PREVIOUSLY: KEVIN: "Maintaining" and "Refuting" are entirely CONTRARY logical processes, Richard. Think again! (1) The art of LOGIC tells all its actual practitioners that NO one can reach a TRUE conclusion by employing a FALSE premise or false premises in their arguments. CORRECTION: (2) In truth, The art of LOGIC tells all its actual practitioners that NO one can reach a FALSE conclusion by employing TRUE premises and a CORRECT argument FORM. (3) But with an INCORRECT argument FORM, then TRUE premises may lead to a FALSE conclusion. (4) Yet with an INCORRECT argument FORM a TRUE "conclusion", which does not logically "follow", is also possible.
The fallacy is called "undistributed middle" (term). In both cases each premise's supposedly "middle" term (animal) is taken particularly, rather than universally. You can figure that out by converting (swapping; exchanging) the subjects with the predicates of each proposition. So, for example, "Every cat is an animal", only means, by conversion, that "Some animal is a cat"; So, too, "Every pig is an animal." only means that "Some animal is a pig". Hence, there is no reason to infer, from the fact that both pigs and cats are animals, that they have anything else in common which links pigs to cats. (3) I demonstrated another formal fallacy, previously, in talking about the fallacy of an ILLICIT MAJOR term:
One cannot logically/formally go from a particular to a universal. (1) But one may logically, or validly, infer a TRUE conclusion from FALSE premises. Thus the CORRECTION mentioned in "(2)". For if I say, quite falsely, in two premises that...
...I have validly inferred a true conclusion from false premises. The argument is not "sound" (because of false premises) but it is a valid argument with a true conclusion. So, as you argue, Richard, FORMAL LOGIC can't tell anyone about whether or not any given statement is true or false. But sentential LOGIC does "tell" anyone who KNOWS the subject about how TRUE and FALSE propositions are logically opposed. And FORMAL LOGIC does inform those who KNOW that subject how to VALIDLY go from TRUE premises to TRUE conclusions. The problem with "philosophy", as you seem "to KNOW it", is that a metaphorical ton of FALSE statements have been LOGICALLY or VALIDLY employed to rationally infer VALID, but entirely FALSE, conclusions. LOGIC, just like computing SCIENCE, is an entirely "GIGO" (garbage in = garbage out) kind of operation. But you can't fault "the logic" when the DATA (to use Russell's term) or PREMISES happen to be "garbage". Kevin |
|
Richard
Dec 30th, 2007 - 6:45 AM |
Re: Logic Correction
Kevin, "So, as you argue, Richard, FORMAL LOGIC can't tell anyone about whether or not any given statement is true or false." You are missing the point of what I am saying. First of all, I never said "Formal Logic can't tell anyone about whether or not any given statement is true or false", although that is the case. I am saying that Philosophy is not grounded on ANY LOGICAL PROCESS OF THOUGHT, FORMAL, SENTENTIAL, OR OTHERWISE. Philosophy is the accumulated writings of thinkers who never understood the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, thus philosophers have never understood how KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. Can anyone believe the enormous dissension and contradiction that is so characteristic of philosophy would exist if the thinking of philosophers had been grounded in understanding the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE AND HOW KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. I don't have to know how to fix a car to know a car is broken but the mechanic does. The philosopher must understand the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE to understand how to construct sensible Philosophy. Otherwise, his philosophical writing will result is endless confusion. |
|
Kevin
Dec 31st, 2007 - 6:56 AM |
Logic Correction & Richard's Refuted "definition" of Knowledge
Re: Logic Correction Kevin, "So, as you argue, Richard, FORMAL LOGIC can't tell anyone about whether or not any given statement is true or false." You are missing the point of what I am saying. REPLY: Not a chance, Richard. I never miss anybody's POINT, especially your POINT, because it is the only point you have ever made to this list. "Philosophy makes no progress, unlike SCIENCE!", is your repetitive POINT. RICHARD: First of all, I never said "Formal Logic can't tell anyone about whether or not any given statement is true or false", although that is the case. REBUTTAL: You did "SAY" that! Only you SAID IT with a RHETORICAL QUESTION, requote: RICHARD (requote): Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'? Then you proceeded to tell us about, requote RICHARD: The best I can tell, the dependence of Philosophy on 'formal logic' is the result of philosophers never understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. Their explanation for the existence of 'justified true belief', as knowledge, has been as a 'haphazard trial and error process over a long period of time'. COMMENT: Your 'justified true belief' thesis was refuted by Socrates, Theaetetus and Theodorus, about 25 centuries ago, as previously proved by Plato. However being refuted on that point, which was supposedly pertinent to your "POINT", you still are "stuck" on that point, as is evident below, quote RICHARD: I am saying that Philosophy is not grounded on ANY LOGICAL PROCESS OF THOUGHT, FORMAL, SENTENTIAL, OR OTHERWISE. COMMENT: Evidently, then, you think that "Philosophy" is utterly "illogical", since it is not grounded on any LOGICAL PROCESS whatsoever. FASCINATING "thought"! RICHARD: Philosophy is the accumulated writings of thinkers who never understood the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, thus philosophers have never understood how KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. REPLY: They must have been "bad thinkers", then, Richard! Do you know what Plato said about "accumulated writings" and philosophy, Richard? I quote PLATO: One STATEMENT, at any rate I can make in regard to ALL who have WRITTEN or who may WRITE with a claim to KNOWLEDGE of the subjects to which I devote myself --- no matter how they PRETEND to have acquired it [Plato's kind of KNOWLEDGE; KB], whether from my instruction, or from others, or by their own discovery. Such WRITERS can in my OPINION have no REAL ACQUAINTANCE with the SUBJECT. I certainly have COMPOSED NO WORK in regard to it, nor shall I ever do so in future, for there is NO WAY of putting IT INTO WORDS, like other STUDIES. Acquaintance with it [Philosophy? KB] must come rather after a long period of attendance on instruction in the SUBJECT ITSELF and of close companionship, when, suddenly, like a blaze kindled by a leaping spark, it is GENERATED IN THE SOUL and at once becomes SELF SUSTAINING. (...Yaddety...) ...If, however he was seriously concerned with these matters and PUT THEM IN WRITING, 'then surely' not the gods, but mortals 'have utterly blasted his wits' [Reference to the Illiad 7.360, 12.234]. ********PLATO'S 7TH LETTER*********** RICHARD: Can anyone believe the enormous dissension and contradiction that is so characteristic of philosophy...[As put in WRITING}... REPLY: Plato not only believed that enormous dissension and contradiction would exist if "philosophers" tried to write DISQUISITIONS on the SUBJECTS TO WHICH HE DEVOTED HIMSELF, he actually WROTE that such WRITTEN TREATISES implied NO KNOWLEDGE of the SUBJECT. His 7th LETTER, implies such dissension/contradiction! That is probably one of the reasons that "scholars", who specialize in WRITING about "philosophy", doubt Plato's 7th LETTER was actually written by Plato!!! RICHARD: [Can anyone believe the enormous dissension and contradiction that is so "characteristic" of (WRITTEN) "philosophy"} would exist if the thinking of philosophers had been grounded in understanding the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE AND HOW KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. REPLY: Plato certainly believed that WRITTEN PHILOSOPHY implied "blasted wits" --- sort of like your "blasted wit", Richard, because you actually "think", CONTRARY to Plato, requote:- RICHARD: Philosophy is the accumulated WRITINGS of thinkers who never understood the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, thus philosophers have never understood how KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. REBUTTAL: Not according to Plato, Richard. Philosophy is produced when a "spark" is enkindled by one philosopher in another philosopher, just as Socrates "sparked" Plato, and Plato "sparked" Aristotle. You're just SPOOKED by contradictory WRITINGS! Had you ever actually read Plato, you'd KNOW why you're "down" on written "philosophy" and making WILD ACCUSATIONS about "philosophers" NOT KNOWING about KNOWLEDGE! ctd. KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com