Does logic equal truth?

[raw_thought]

A logical argument does not need to be valid?????

 

[Logikal]

I am still waiting for a formal argument using modus tollens that has "logic is about validity."

A logical argument does not need to be valid?????

I stated that because most humans will recognize when a logical form fails. Some arguments are invalid! Are you saying what I think you are saying: if an argument is not valid it is not a logical argument? An argument can have logical FORM regardless if it is valid or not. because an argument is invalid does not mean people will say the argument is not logical. You are using the word LOGICAL in a new context there.

 

[Logikal]

By the way,
I was not insulting you when I "accused" you of having asbergers. My daughter has asbergers and she is smarter then me! However ,she has a problem withmetaphors and generalizations.

I know you were making an analogy. Still it was entertaining although not applicable to our discussion here.

I think we are missing each other here. It is not that we are on opposing sides. We are using different context at the moment. We need to define terms to save time and improve clarity.

 

[Logikal]

Lets start with what you think the notion of VALIDITY is.

What do you define validity as?

 

[Curious George]

Yes. Would you honestly agree that if an argument can be formally valid and still commit a fallacy that the claim "Logic is only about validity" is false? Or would you still think logic is all about validity still?

that is a good one! I was not literally meaning YOU. I made a general claim not to be taken personally. I am asking would you say logic is only about validity if informal fallacies can exist in valid arguments? Or would you deny logic is only about validity once you see that subject content does matter in many instances in using logic?

So I am trying to figure this out? When you ( and I mean you) use the term "you" are you asking a question about my personal opinion or the common man's personal opinion? If not about me, when did the common man assert that truth is ONLY about validity? We still have yet to account for this "still."

Edit**deleted "you" wrote "still": typo...apparently yous always on my mind.

I think most people see substantive content first in logic, and with only deeper insight realize that validity matters as well. So to claim that logic is about content or procedures are all looking at different facets of the same puzzle. This puzzle however is not equal to truth (in answer to the op). This puzzle is a system for processing information. Not too unlike our eyes. Is vision all about truth? Or is vision all about light? If someone says to me- they says, "George, vision is about light," I would nod. If someone says to me, "George, vision is about truth," I would nod. You see, someone saying logic is about validity is not wrong, because logic is in part about validity.

Why you two keep talking past each other is beyond me. You both have said some very intelligent things. But I don't think either of you said that validity does not matter in logic, or that truth does not matter. If that is your interpretation, perhaps you would be more comfy with the description that truth needn't matter for logical systems to work. That I think is raw thoughts thought. Which I think is well thought. That logic deals also with soundness clearly indicates that truth is an important aspect not to be neglected in logic. I don't think anyone said otherwise, did they?

 

[Logikal]

So I am trying to figure this out? When you ( and I mean you) use the term "you" are you asking a question about my personal opinion or the common man's personal opinion? If not about me, when did the common man assert that truth is ONLY about validity? We still have yet to account for this you.

I think most people see substantive content first in logic, and with only deeper insight realize that validity matters as well. So to claim that logic is about content or procedures are all looking at different facets of the same puzzle. This puzzle however is not equal to truth (in answer to the op). This puzzle is a system for processing information. Not too unlike our eyes. Is vision all about truth? Or is vision all about light? If someone says to me- they says, "George, vision is about light," I would nod. If someone says to me, "George, vision is about truth," I would nod. You see, someone saying logic is about validity is not wrong, because logic is in part about validity.

Why you two keep talking past each other is beyond me. You both have said some very intelligent things. But I don't think either of you said that validity does not matter in logic, or that truth does not matter. If that is your interpretation, perhaps you would be more comfy with the description that truth needn't matter for logical systems to work. That I think is raw thoughts thought. Which I think is well thought. That logic deals also with soundness clearly indicates that truth is an important aspect not to be neglected in logic. I don't think anyone said otherwise, did they?

In the question I asked I was asking YOU personally and not generalizing about if a formal valid argument can commit a fallacy would you insist logic is about validity? If you answer NO then logic is NOT about validity alone.
By my proof that a logically valid argument could still commit an equivocation fallacy indicate content is relevant in logic as it was from the BEGINNING. My point was from the BEGINNNG logic was about CONTENT. The form also mattered but was UNDER true content. I have suggested as Aristotle logic is BETTER when we KNOW our premises are TRUE from the START. Aristotle gave examples of true premises in his examples of valid arguments. he did not go out of the way and say "hey, you could have a valid argument with false premises." The point was LOGIC is truth preserving!!!!!
If logic is a method of continuing TRUTHS then the content portion outweighs the formal portion. In math logic is about symbol manipulation which is WHY it is all about validity, validity and validity. Math is the reason people harp on to the extreme about validity. My opponent here would say truth is not part of logic. He has stated logic is not about truth. He learned modern logic is what I realize. I would not be surprised if he knew little about classical logic. If one learns the historical portion first all the other things will be shown in the correct light. If you start with only the modern textbooks of logic they will be biased in favor of math. Hence you can tell a tree by its fruit: how one answers I can tell what methodology they likely came from.
Again I want to emphasize prior to the math movement Philosophers cared about SOUNDNESS and would never say Logic is about validity. That logic is about validity is found after the math movement began.

 

[Curious George]

In the question I asked I was asking YOU personally and not generalizing about if a formal valid argument can commit a fallacy would you insist logic is about validity? If you answer NO then logic is NOT about validity alone.
By my proof that a logically valid argument could still commit an equivocation fallacy indicate content is relevant in logic as it was from the BEGINNING. My point was from the BEGINNNG logic was about CONTENT. The form also mattered but was UNDER true content. I have suggested as Aristotle logic is BETTER when we KNOW our premises are TRUE from the START. Aristotle gave examples of true premises in his examples of valid arguments. he did not go out of the way and say "hey, you could have a valid argument with false premises." The point was LOGIC is truth preserving!!!!!
If logic is a method of continuing TRUTHS then the content portion outweighs the formal portion. In math logic is about symbol manipulation which is WHY it is all about validity, validity and validity. Math is the reason people harp on to the extreme about validity. My opponent here would say truth is not part of logic. He has stated logic is not about truth. He learned modern logic is what I realize. I would not be surprised if he knew little about classical logic. If one learns the historical portion first all the other things will be shown in the correct light. If you start with only the modern textbooks of logic they will be biased in favor of math. Hence you can tell a tree by its fruit: how one answers I can tell what methodology they likely came from.
Again I want to emphasize prior to the math movement Philosophers cared about SOUNDNESS and would never say Logic is about validity. That logic is about validity is found after the math movement began.

Was the math movement Euclid? Validity does matter. It mattered in ancient times it matters now. That is why Aristotle discussed fallacies. You seem to be harping on validity. I would never say validity is all that matters. I am not so sure your "opponent" did either. Your opponent is merely pointing out that logic can work and deals with thoughts independent of those thoughts truth values. You have pointed out clearly that logic does deal with more than only validity. It seems that you both want the other one to argue something that they are not.

Validity matters, truth matters, soundness matters...and if you ask @Kilgore Trout He will tell you black lives matter (too).

 

[Logikal]

Was the math movement Euclid? Validity does matter. It mattered in ancient times it matters now. That is why Aristotle discussed fallacies. You seem to be harping on validity. I would never say validity is all that matters. I am not so sure your "opponent" did either. Your opponent is merely pointing out that logic can work and deals with thoughts independent of those thoughts truth values. You have pointed out clearly that logic does deal with more than only validity. It seems that you both want the other one to argue something that they are not.

Validity matters, truth matters, soundness matters...and if you ask @Kilgore Trout He will tell you black lives matter (too).

LOL!!!!!!

Well no Euclid did not relate math to logic. Mr Boole is one of the founders of the logic and Math correlation. This was not done until the 19th century. That is historical fact. Logic remained in domain of philosophy until then. My opponent has stated "logic is not about truth." This goes against what history can prove. How did people in the 19 century and after get the notion logic is about validity. You would find some old text before the 19 century that say logic is concerned with validity as a method of truth preservation. That is all validity refers to. If you start out with true premises in the proper format the conclusion MUST be true. What math says is a variant: IF (and notice that if is BIG) the premises are true then so must the conclusion be true. It adheres to Mr. Boole's existential import argument: that unless you sense verify x, x is not true.
Boole takes away the knowledge portion of deductive logic in one big swoop. All because how is he supposed to know if All unicorns are white? If he can't tell then who can? If nobody can then the claim is not SENSIBLY true to HIM. The world seems to have taken his side.

The bait & switch move here is that logic went from objective truth to scientific sense verification truths.

 

[God lover]

You are using the WRONG word! Deductive logic describes a RELATIONSHIP between propositions --not random sentences or random events. The term you mean is PRACTICAL or even POSSIBLE and not logic. How many practical ways are there to my house or how many possible ways are there to my house.
I see many people also often confuse MATH with logic. This was NOT always so. It is popular now because people hold more respect for the topic of MATH than Philosophy. This has been the case since Socrates up until now. Note over 2,000 years have passed with the notion Philosophy is useless or BS. The thought is still living and perhaps growing.

Okay THANKS. the BIG words are very CLEAR lol.

But really, thanks. I have learnt a lot from the philosophy section. The terms a very specific and it is nearly impossible to speak in this section without a formal understanding of philosophy and logic.

All the best; )

 

[Curious George]

LOL!!!!!!

Well no Euclid did not relate math to logic. Mr Boole is one of the founders of the logic and Math correlation. This was not done until the 19th century. That is historical fact. Logic remained in domain of philosophy until then. My opponent has stated "logic is not about truth." This goes against what history can prove. How did people in the 19 century and after get the notion logic is about validity. You would find some old text before the 19 century that say logic is concerned with validity as a method of truth preservation. That is all validity refers to. If you start out with true premises in the proper format the conclusion MUST be true. What math says is a variant: IF (and notice that if is BIG) the premises are true then so must the conclusion be true. It adheres to Mr. Boole's existential import argument: that unless you sense verify x, x is not true.
Boole takes away the knowledge portion of deductive logic in one big swoop. All because how is he supposed to know if All unicorns are white? If he can't tell then who can? If nobody can then the claim is not SENSIBLY true to HIM. The world seems to have taken his side.

The bait & switch move here is that logic went from objective truth to scientific sense verification truths.

Have you read elements?

Math has been related to logic for a very long time. Euclid most certainly employed logic.

What you are talking about is quite different.

It seems you are somehow affronted by the application of math to logic, but don't make a logical error here. Logic has been applied to math for millennia.

In other words, no you are wrong, and that is a historical fact.

 

[Logikal]

Have you read elements?

Math has been related to logic for a very long time. Euclid most certainly employed logic.

What you are talking about is quite different.

It seems you are somehow affronted by the application of math to logic, but don't make a logical error here. Logic has been applied to math for millennia.

In other words, no you are wrong, and that is a historical fact.

This is what I doubt very much. Can you provide any sources PRIOR to BOOLE where math is associated to deductive logic? One or two sources would suffice to prove me wrong.
My claim is deductive logic was not associated to Math as it is now: nobody was saying math is logic prior to Boole, Russell, etc. which is when the mathematical logic movement took place. Some people might have made some connection with the concepts but this was slight and not to the point where people thought the math department would teach logic. All students knew basically you had to take philosophy to learn logic. This has changed.

 

[Thief]

In the real world you may see this but that is done by people with bad intentions.

Academically and being honest one simply names things to discuss things without other people being confused to what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with control. You are mixing reality into the intellectual realm.

what?.....to know reality.....without using your intellect?

 

[Logikal]

what?.....to know reality.....without using your intellect?

The context I am using is distinguishing INTELLECTUAL from simply being PRACTICAL.
There are tons of "handy-men" carpenters who can achieve results but have no clue to technical components of carpentry. You may be able to put up a sheet rock wall but do you know how far nails are to be spaced?
There is a technical component there. The street fix it guy might not have technical knowledge but able to DUPE the same results. This is sort of like when MOSES did something miraculous in the Bible, but the Pharaoh's Hench men did something SIMILAR and thought it was the SAME thing. In reality it clearly was not. Coloring a river with red ink is not the same as turning the river INTO BLOOD. A demon may be able to look like an angel of light but there is a difference objectively.

 

[Thief]

The context I am using is distinguishing INTELLECTUAL from simply being PRACTICAL.
There are tons of "handy-men" carpenters who can achieve results but have no clue to technical components of carpentry. You may be able to put up a sheet rock wall but do you know how far nails are to be spaced?
There is a technical component there. The street fix it guy might not have technical knowledge but able to DUPE the same results. This is sort of like when MOSES did something miraculous in the Bible, but the Pharaoh's Hench men did something SIMILAR and thought it was the SAME thing. In reality it clearly was not. Coloring a river with red ink is not the same as turning the river INTO BLOOD. A demon may be able to look like an angel of light but there is a difference objectively.

I am a jack -of all-trades.....and a master of several....

I might offer a notation.....
a spoken phrase could have a really profound truth.....
but some people don't 'get it'.....
and some that do....choose to ignore.