I see things as systems. Paradoxes are signs that the system containing them is limited. To resolve the paradoxes you need to use a different system. This doesn’t invalidate the system with the paradoxes, just that all systems have their limitations where they break and something else needs to be used instead.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9051832&fileId=S1079898600005357The Abstract is enough. There is a history of formalized logic. Before such time as formalized logic arose as a system, there was no formalized system of logic used in the way that formalized logic is used today.It is a system. It is an invented system which defines a process. Other logics are other invented systems which also define processes, each with their own merits and drawbacks, strong points and failure points.
That’s a high compliment smile emoticon I have to live with my logic every day. It instructs my decision making processes, how to categorize and sort inputs, what’s important, what can I ignore, etc.
Everything I read feeds into it somehow as does experience. As much of the systems of logic I’ve learned that’s compatible, I incorporate into my thought processes. I’m using them right now. What I learned about formal rhetoric (very little officially), gets incorporated.
A lot of stuff doesn’t. There’s stuff that has nowhere to go, so I discard it.
One rule of thumb I have is flaws. I look for them in every system. I don’t care about “valid or invalid” – to me that’s party games.
“Your logic is flawed” is a meaningless sentence to me. That’s part of a game to me.
That means “My chess move is superior to yours”.
But if a computer program I’m writing doesn’t compile, well THAT tells me my logic is flawed, and I HAVE to get my logic perfect or it doesn’t work at all.
Oh any programming I do is recreational. It serves a purpose. I have a goal in mind. I want to achieve it. I want to see if I’m capable of surpassing something I did before. So I take on overly complicated project that is interesting to me – I create the project as I go along, and then I work to achieve it.
Logical integrity has to encompass the whole system and the system includes myself.
This includes my moral values, my considerations for other people, my desire to communicate and be understood, the “game of argumentation” (the back and forth of it), the need to impress certain ideas and make a connection of understanding between me and another person.
Your explanation did not compute. If you are saying the same thing 10 times and it’s not being received, then modify your message because it’s not getting through. The fault is in the sender not the receiver. The teacher has to change how they teach if its ineffective.
Anytime you try to convince somebody of something, you are in the role of their teacher
Oh, that’s not true at all, Peter. Sales people are great at it. Politicians do it. Teachers do it. Parents do it to their kids. Kids do it to their parents.
What’s that famous definition of insanity? Repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
I don’t agree with that definition by the way – I was just reminded of it.
Within the SYSTEM OF LOGIC, logic represents correctness. That is the ONLY PLACE where logic represents correctness.
That’s my approach to my every engagement online.
In fact, I seek out people whose personality types are just like for this reason: They challenge me in ways I wouldn’t do myself because their thought processes are very foreign to me.
I always learn something, either about them, about myself, or about some subject matter I was unclear on and I always hope that I leave a little something useful behind as well.
It depends on the constraints of the system, the specifications laid out for the project, the reality of the situation you find yourself working in, the acceptance of the parties involved, the actualization of it in the real world, and the post mortem afterwards.
What I described there is a basic overview of “correctness” as utilized in engineering from my understanding of it. I’m not an engineer but their principles are similar in many areas.
They’re very complicated and include a lot of contradiction – much of which cannot be resolved using simple rules of logic.
Logic is involved, certainly throughout the entire process, but the scope of the projects change as you go, goalposts move, needs change, and even if you do EVERYTHING correctly, you can STILL end up incorrect because we can’t foresee the future.
That was my answer. It just didn’t fit into your system. This is the problem I was trying to explain to you from the start. You have a very small closed world you’re working within that cannot incorporate much more than a few expectations.
Ok. Is correctness meeting initial specification? Yes and no.
Is correctness acceptance by authority? Yes and no.
Is correctness proper logic throughout the process? Yes and no.
Is correctness determined by those who funded the project? Yes and no.
Is correctness determined by the community that lives with the project? Yes and no.
Can logic alone determine correctness of the project? I don’t know.
It may be logically correct now. It might be logically incorrect in five minutes. Change is constant. You want fixed universal. You won’t like the answer I gave. That much is logically assured tongue emoticon
I consider it useful. I do not think the systems of logic we use can be used as a basis for everything. My own internal logic (my programming as it were) does not conform to the system that Peter is using. Through analogy, like you did a bridge can be made between the two different logic systems.
Are they both logic-as-a-process? Yes. But they are different systems and their processes take different routes.
My issue is not with Logic as a way to describe systems and processes. My issue is with “one way” logic. It looks and smells like religion, and my holy book of logic is different from your holy book of logic, which is also called Logic and is taught in classrooms and campuses and is the basis for the foundations of mathematics and numerous other systems.
Well I’m glad you jumped in and I always walk away from an online conversation knowing something more than I did before. That’s why I’m here instead of sleeping or doing something else. This fits into my logic, purpose, meaning, etc, all that stuff.
That’s the holy book logic I’m talking about. Fallacies are sins and all of that.
My brain, my way of thinking, that is _also_ logic, but I don’t follow the same scriptures you do.
Give me something logically impossible for you. I’ll explain how it’s possible.
That’s the only way you can think of, not the only way there is.
They’re artificial constructs existing in a fictional platonic realm, described via the axioms and proofs of geometry and further descriptions and definitions provided as new systems were developed throughout history.
squares and circles themselves are fictional so it’s logical that a square circle would also be fictional.
Their very existence disappears the moment you remove their definitions. *poof* They’re gone. Story over.
Not with everything else. Stuff can exist without anything to describe them.
They can still exist whether or not there is a way to discern a ‘this’ from a ‘that’.
Reality ceases to exist if it can’t be defined? Wow. Ok. Well, anyway, I’m off to dreamland – you helped encourage 3100+ words to come out of my fingers tonight, assisted me in clarifying my thoughts on a number of issues in a better way – ways that may or may not convince you, but I now have these novel explanations (novel to me) available to draw from to explain things to others.
So, thank you for that grin emoticon They’re words I wouldn’t have written otherwise and now I have. Good night! like emoticon