Logic, a definition

[niin]

Originally Posted by Racoon

When I say "Trees are Big" does that imply I mean all trees?

yes, it does. (to me)
trees (as in more than one tree but not specified) is illogical
you have a "something undefined = something defined" statement.
about which we can say nothing.

Originally Posted by Racoon

Does any of this make sense to you Niin?

Are you implying there is something wrong with what i wrote ealier?
Or are you asking me if i agree with your statements in that post?
Or maybe Both?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by niin

A definition is a true statement

If you mean true in a logical sense, then I still beg to differ.

A definition can be anything. It takes work to find out if it really has any value or not.

For example: "A moon's orbit is a result of the inverse square law."

This is a definition. Is it true or false? Does it have value? And if it is false, but you believe it to be true, is the knowledge you have gained of any value at all? Can it have negative value (ie bad knowledge).

If I agree that your statement is a definition. then i get the understanding that is your statement. The knowledge.
The closer a definition is to being true the better the understanding is.

That's exactly my point. Consesus does not make anything "true", no matter how logically valied a statement is. That is why the scientific method is so important to gain knowledge.

(Remember you're posting this in the "Philosophy of science" forum and not the "Philosophy" forum).

Usually people doesn't do stuff unless it agrees with em.

This is something entirely different and has to do with morals and personal values.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by niin

yes, it does. (to me)

Are you implying there is something wrong with what i wrote ealier?
Or are you asking me if i agree with your statements in that post?
Or maybe Both?

Ok, to You - which becomes perception, a whole new animal...

No, I am not implying there is something wrong with your statements. ( other people will do that )

I was implying that I am getting myself confused! >>>

OK,
Categorical Proposition:
Categorical Proposition offer assertions about "Classes", affirming or denying that one class is included in one another; either in whole or in part.

Consider the example: No athletes are vegetarians; & All Soccer players are Athletes: Therefore no soccer players are vegetarian.
The premises and conclusions of the argument are assertions about classes of athletes and classes of soccer players.

I think your classes of values stated in your first post should be the "Four standard forms of categorical propositions"

-Universal Affirmative
-Universal Negative
-Particular Affirmative
-Particular Negative

Does any of this make sense to you Niin?
I realize the language barrier, and you are doing a great job!
Racoon

[niin]

Originally Posted by Tormod

"A moon's orbit is a result of the inverse square law."

This is a definition. Is it true or false? Does it have value? And if it is false, but you believe it to be true, is the knowledge you have gained of any value at all? Can it have negative value (ie bad knowledge).

It could very easy not be a definition.
If it is a definition...then it is true. (by definition)

A wrong definition can be logical...and therefor have value.

Bad knowledge is inferior knowledge.
"Value" used as a comparing factor does not get any meaning out of the term "negative" (as in math). "Value" is only used to determine wich is better (more usefull).

Originally Posted by Tormod

That's exactly my point. Consesus does not make anything "true", no matter how logically valied a statement is. That is why the scientific method is so important to gain knowledge.

Did i say consensus make something true? I don't believe i did.
But bringing up the subject...
The scientific method use the concept of consensus all the time.
When you are repeating experiments and confirming results, you are trying to get consensus.
Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Tormod

(Remember you're posting this in the "Philosophy of science" forum and not the "Philosophy" forum).

People offen use "logic" when discussing science so I would think this the proper place for this topic.
Are you saying i am getting of topic?

[kmarinas86]

Non-circular (Practical) Logic - a cognitive process whose input includes assumptions (for deduction) or sensory data (for induction) and whose output is implied knowledge (implication) that is unique from those assumptions or sensory data.

A statement is rendered true if the understanding decoded, via either the sublanguage or slanguage that is used to encode the statement or the sublanguage or slanguage used by the decoder, consists of information that corresponds to the original event, person, place, thing, or abstract idea responsible for the transcription or utterance of the first instantation of the statement in the sublanguage or slanguage used to encode the statement.

[Jehu]

To define a term such as “Logic” is to give its precise meaning, and since the precise meaning of any term is conventionally prescribed, it follows that only those prescribed meanings are valid definitions. This, however, does not mean that the thing which the term denotes is itself valid, for there is a valid definition of a Unicorn, though no such animal actually exists.

One valid definition of “Logic” is “ the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference”. However, if I understand niin’s original posting correctly, it is not the definition of Logic itself that is in dispute, but the principles and axioms upon which this “science of reasoning” is based. Logic, like every science, takes a particular domain of reality (i.e., human reasoning) as its field of study, and then attempts to discover, through observation and inference, the true nature of that object. By the term, “nature”, I mean those primitive elements that are necessary and sufficient to the thing’s being perceived or thought about, along with those principles or laws which govern the interaction of these primitive elements. It would appear then that niin is attempting to redefine those primitive elements, but I am not clear on what those elements are, nor how they relate. Furthermore, I would ask what precisely is meant by the terms “value” and “information”.

Regards, Jehu

[niin]

Jehu, thanks for your post

Originally Posted by Jehu

if I understand niin’s original posting correctly, it is not the definition of Logic itself that is in dispute, but the principles and axioms upon which this “science of reasoning” is based.

The word "Logic" covers alot. I am trying to define (describe) the underlying foundation of the concept. I don't mind going into the normal understanding of the concept, but i would just prefer to define the basics first. I was hoping for more input about the basics before wanting to go forward with the topic.

Originally Posted by Jehu

It would appear then that niin is attempting to redefine those primitive elements, but I am not clear on what those elements are, nor how they relate.

I do not understand what you are talking about here.

Originally Posted by Jehu

Furthermore, I would ask what precisely is meant by the terms “value” and “information”.

Information;
Information is an element in a system.
If we have the system of possible numbers 1-10 and we have the number 2 in the system then that 2 is information.

Value:
Value is the usefulness of something.
one hand is usefull. Two hands are more usefull.

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by niin

Jehu, thanks for your post


The word "Logic" covers alot. I am trying to define (describe) the underlying foundation of the concept. I don't mind going into the normal understanding of the concept, but i would just prefer to define the basics first. I was hoping for more input about the basics before wanting to go forward with the topic.

I understand completely, however, what I was attempting to ascertain was whether when you said, “logic”, it was to the science of reasoning with its formal principles and axiom that you referred, or was it to the informal chain of human reasoning itself ? I will assume, however, that it was the latter definition that you meant, that is, the intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises. If this so, then the primitive elements that I referred to are the substantiating premises, and the scheme that you propose is meant to describe the principle or law whereby these premises are united to form a valid conclusion. Now, you say that you would hope to have some input before proceeding, so please allow me to offer the following ideas.

Consider the following three premises:

P1 – An effect cannot arise without a cause.
P2 – An effect cannot arise solely out of a single cause to which it is identical.
P3 – An effect cannot arise solely out of a single cause to which it is not identical.

Now, assuming that these three premises are valid, what conclusion can be drawn from them?

If we try to amalgamate P1 and P2, the conclusion yields not more “information” than does the two individual premises.

Conclusion (P1&P2) An effect cannot arise without a cause, or solely out of a single cause to which it is identical.

The same is true if we try to unite P1 and P3.

Conclusion (P1&P3) An effect cannot arise without a cause, or solely out of a single cause to which it is not identical.

However, if we combine P2 with P3, our conclusion yields addition information.

Conclusion (P2&P3) An effect cannot arise solely out of a single cause.

What’s more, this conclusion may now be amalgamated with P1, to yield another conclusion, with additional information.

Conclusion ((P2&P3)&P1) An effect cannot arise out of less than two causes.

Now, all we need do is discern the underlying principle or law which enable us to amalgamate some premises, and not others. I hope that this is helpful?

Regards, Jehu

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by niin

Did i say consensus make something true? I don't believe i did.
But bringing up the subject...
The scientific method use the concept of consensus all the time.
When you are repeating experiments and confirming results, you are trying to get consensus.
Do you agree?

No, I disagree. The scientific method does not include consensus. You may be thinging about the peer-review process for publication of scientific articles, perhaps?

Anyone trying to reach consensus by using the scientific method would be heavily biased and probably not a good scientist.

The consensus will come later, when theories are published and people start discussing them.

People offen use "logic" when discussing science so I would think this the proper place for this topic.
Are you saying i am getting of topic?

I am saying that this forum is for discussion of philosophy as it pertains to the scientific method, not for logic in itself (which belongs in the philosophy forum).

It was just a reminder - we are on topic as far as I'm concerned.

[questor]

How about this?
Logic, deductive reasoning leading to a valid conclusion.