Darth Dane

What is Logics and what is not?

This is logic:

x = 1
y = 1

x = y

But when we change the symbols of x and y to contain words and meaning, things apparently change.

A stone cannot fly
My mom cannot fly

My mom is a stone.

Most will say that the conclusion is silly and not logically, however I want to offer a way to make it make sense.

As in the math example we are given to definitions. These definitions is ALL we know. So the only two things we know, is that a stone cannot fly and that my mom cannot fly. It doesn't say if my mom has wings or not.
Given these two definitions we can only conclude one thing; namely that my Mom is a stone. This is where the words must be juggled.
The conclusion could also sound like this: My mom is like a stone when it comes to flying.
The lack of ability to fly makes my Mom and a stone equal on the issue of flying.
This wording would be a correct way to express the only viable conclusion given our two primary definitions.

The reason why people say it is silly is because, they add something to the list of definitions, namely that a "mom" is wholly different than a stone. But this has not been made evident by our definitions.
If so our definitions should sound something like this:

A stone cannot fly
My mom cannot fly
A stone is not a living being
A Mom is a living being

Conclusion: My mom cannot be a stone, but hold a similar attribute as the stone does.


When we see logic based on some definitions, we must make sure what definitions are active, because the interpretation will vary depending on how much we "know" before applying our logical ability.

Of course this type of logics is what I used in my other thread "Thou art God".


I will reiterate my one thing from there:

first definition: I am
Second definition: God Is

Conclusion 1) I am God

Or

Conclusion 2) I am 100% equal to God when it comes to existence. The fact that "I am" is teh same as "God Is", however what I am and what God is, are two very different things.

Given our two first definitions we can conclude 1) or 2) or ?.

Fill in more definitions, and the complexity increases, thus making it more difficult to logically see what is what.

Lets make it again:

I = X
God = Y
(Is/Am, both words refer to a state of existence) = O

I = O = God

Both "I" and "God" refer or point to the same thing, namely existence.

I am not equal to God, but I am equal with one of the attributes of God.


This thread is not so much intended to talk about God, although we may, but more about the way we use the system of logic to conclude how teh world at large works, based on our primary definitions.

If one of your primary definitions is "God Is" then this definition will color all the possible conclusions you can draw, eliminating conclusions that deny the existence of God for example. The use of Logics is not at fault, but which definitions we use, especially our primary ones.
If you don't believe in God, you will dismiss any claim that the bible is written by God, purely based on your primary definition or belief, that you carry with you in all situations.


Thoughts Ideas Comments





DD - Logical Spliff

Doppler

Well, considering logic is merely a construct of the human mind, you could say that logic is, by nature, flawed, and at bare minimum it is limited. It is limited in the same way we are limited with numbers. Logic has been taught to us through the human experience in the world in the same manner that one has been said to always be one and nothing other than one. One can't be two.

Not sure if this makes complete sense, but this is what came to mind after reading your post.

Darth Dane

One can be three when we talk about uneven numbers.

uneven numbers is a big pool. this pool is X

So whenever I use X, you can substitute with ANY uneven number.



DD - Logic Spliff

johngalt

Your explanation makes more sense to me than the traditional way logic is taught. I guess this is just another way to interpret an illogical answer.

Clutch

Well, yes.

The difference is between identity and predication. '=' signifies identity, which is a transitive relation; hence the first inference is sound. Whereas '_ cannot fly' is altogether different. It is a monadic predicate so there will be no analogue with '='. That's false. Why on earth would you think that follows? What follows is that your mom can't fly, and that a stone can't fly.

If you quantify over properties, you could conclude moreover that your mom and a stone have something in common. Which is hardly a surprise.

And if you decide to speak your own special language, lay it down that 'my mom' =df 'all and only those things that cannot fly', and 'a stone' =df 'all and only those things that cannot fly', then "My mom is a stone" will be true in your special language. Except that your special language isn't English, and the conclusion is utterly trivial.

If you want to learn something about logic, I recommend Bergmann, Moor and Nelson, The Logic Book (McGraw-Hill 1998) as an introduction.

ex-xian

There's no reason to create your own system of explaining why this is invalid. Aristotle did it centuries ago. Technically, this argument commits the fallacy of an undistributed middle term. Clutch did a great job of explaining it above.

You also might want to do a search of Venn diagrams. They give an excellent graphic description of what's wrong with the syllogism. I would recommend the old standard logic book by Copi. I can't recall the exact title, it might just be "Logic." But just search for his name and the book will be sure to follow.

Theli

I think you will find that words generally has more attributes and conditions associated with them than mathematic variables.
If you define a rock only as an object lacking the ability to fly, then you don't really know what a rock is, and your conclution doesn't really show us anything. Same goes for your mother ofcourse.
I think it's a common mistake, oversimplifying.

Primal

The fallacy here is easy to see, basically it is invalid.

Example:

All Nazis are racist.

All Klan members are racist.

Hence all Klan members are Nazis.

It simply does not follow, because the racist pool is larger then both Nazis and Klansmen, and while it may include both, that doesn't make them the same group(but smaller groups within a larger category).

Also saying sharing the same trait makes them "equal" simply does not follow either.

Shadowy Man

x is divisible by 2.
y is divisible by 2.

therefore x = y.

GrandDesigner

No two things are exactly alike. Not here, within these physical constraints, or elsewhere.

There is, at most, one of anything and everything.

Be well.

Grand Ol Designer