Logic, a definition

[Jehu]

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]

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? :confused:

 

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.

[Kriminal99]

When I speak of logic, I only mean one of two things... the only 2 ways I believe the mind is capable of reasoning:

 

A is likely to occur because A has occured a majority of the times in the past.

 

or

 

B is at least as true as A because B is part of A and therefore necessarily implied by A.

 

If reversing a computer action in 99% of someone's experience means to undo everything that occured during the computer action.

 

and if

 

a bank system reverses a transaction(A), and a hold on funds(:hihi: is part of a transaction, then a person should be 99% sure that the hold on funds should be released.

 

Therefore a system which purports to reverse a transaction yet leaves any holds on funds communicates poorly.

 

Edit:

 

These are the same as inductive and deductive reasoning mentioned by other posters. I believe the assumptions for deductive reasoning come from inductive reasoning though as my model shows.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sounds like personal experience. :)

 

TFS