Data, information, and knowledge.
Structure, organization, development, and assimilation.
Systematic and purpose driven thought execution.
Spatial intelligence and effecient mind's eye operation.
Conclusive methods of achieving optimal results.
Logic is the subject.
I'm trying to compile the best methods and share views on principles and procedures that can enhance the understanding of logic overall.
I'm working on collecting some sub-topics of logic to share insights on.
It's for people interested in progressing their current intellect.
[ lójjik ]
theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning
system or instance of reasoning: any system of, or an instance of, reasoning and inference
sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim
The absence of a hidden agenda. Something that seems to be woefully lacking in our world today. Oh, well...
And thus will be one of the reasons I will cringe every time I turn on the news until after the elections.
I guess I deserve this paradigm..
The world runs on drama now, not logic. "duh vector.." [you're right]
Not many left with interest in their mental health.. sigh. oh well...
Actually, I think your thread is a good idea. I wouldn't give up on it yet. Meanwhile...
There is one hubber here, who shall remain nameless, who consistently demonstrates the following intellectual level of logic:
"All cats are mammals. Therefore, all mammals are cats."
I kid you not. He is the only hubber on this site that I've ever truly written off and is dead to me.
In fact, I often have doubts that anybody is really that incredibly stupid. Thus my thoughts on maybe it's hidden agenda and/or he is one of those paid political posters. Fortunately, I seldom hang out there.
Am I allowed to use process of elimination?
Took me forever with so many people.
Nah, it would serve no benign purpose.
The people-things I've learned in these forums the last 2 years have actually helped me in real-world interactions. I can detect real-world personality positive/negative characteristics more than twice as fast as I used to. I've also learned to be a better communicator. And I have developed a greater sense of empathy. And it's even developed my logic skills.
I had no idea that I would turn this into a I-Love-HP-Forums rant.
I think I'll call it a night.
Hey, the great mind of paradigm is back. I guess it took a subject like this one to peak your brain again. Yeah!
I backed off this one at first because, like janesix, I wasn't sure what the objective was. I think many posters can truly benefit from learning how to argue effectively and correctly. We all get off on tangents but many comments don't even make sense.
p makes a great observation. I hadn't realized the benefits I'm seeing in communication skills in real world.
That's very interesting. Some people are just plain arseholes huh?
Without referring to any definitions, I have always been under the impression that "sound logic" is something that follows.
Asking what makes sound logic sound is a misapplication of terms. An argument can be evaluated as being sound or unsound, but logic itself is simply the method by which the argument is evaluated. What makes a sound argument sound? The fact that the argument is valid, and all of its premises are true.
Well said.. I know i didn't state it verbatim, but "optimal" results is meant as progressing to newer and better methods..
Optimal is subjective and there is always a better method to develop.
Although it seems I'd have to do so on my own, as it's a little complicated to attempt such on a forum with others not seeking the same objective... lol
Some people think logic can determine whether an argument is truth. They have the idea that if something is logically valid, it is likely true, and anything not logically valid must be untrue. The logical validity of an argument though bears no relation to how factual it is, and the factual truth of an argument bears no relation to whether it's logically valid. For example:
All unicorns are pink.
The animal in my friend's garden is a unicorn.
Therefore the animal in my friend's garden is pink.
This is a logical argument. The conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises. It is logically valid. Yet there are no unicorns, they aren't pink and there isn't one at the bottom of my friend's garden. So it's logical but not true. This also works the other way:
All dogs are mammals.
The animal in my friend's garden is a mammal.
Therefore the animal in my friend's garden is a dog.
This is not a logical argument. The conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises (you could also conclude the animal in my garden is a cat without contradicting any of the premises). It's a non sequitur. Yet there is an animal in my friend's garden, it is a mammal, and it is a dog. So this argument is not logical, but true nevertheless.
Conclusion? Logical validity and truth are not the same. An argument is not necessarily incorrect because it is logically invalid. Likewise an argument is not necessarily correct because it is logically valid. Therefore evaluating an argument with logic is, on it's own, insufficient as a method for determining truth. Determining whether an argument is logical adds nothing to what you know other than that the argument is logical. Logical/illogical does not equate to true/false or even probable/improbable.
Logic is the process of separating and combining knowledge so that become complete or make sense or forms a tbought.
Then the thought itself is combined and or separated with other thoughts again to the point of completion.
When it is completed it will make sense or form another thought. When it works for the benefit of those who are part of that thought, it is then pronounced as Truth...this is what you referred to as sound logic.
To those who percieve that the thought does not work for them, they pronounce it as false...thus they pronounce it as illogical.
A thought is complete when it incorporate all the sub-thought into one all going in the same direction to the same goal....unless this happens Truth is unattainable.
Oh I see what you want Vector. Something along the lines of:
I THINK.....THEREFORE I AM..... A LIBERAL!!
Well, if you insist.
I wasn't going to tell everyone all your secrets Randy, but they are yours after all.
[ joking.. sorta ]
Making the use of logic simple is my goal.
Truth is foundation.
If the propositions hold true statements you're building on bricks.
If one of the statements holds false information the rest of the truth [bricks] are being laid on thin air, essentially laying nothing beyond the false statement because the air won't it.
Breaking down the methods into simplicity allows efficient reasoning [less info to process, but allows for the same result]
Logic is certainly established well [to an extent] in the philisophical world, but the understanding of it is written in lengthy and strectched out wording, rather than in simplicity.
My point is they now view logic through microsoft windows eyes, "bigger is better" without acknowledging that the less the processor has to process the faster and more accurate the result.
Programmers often do this. They build a system that works like a road-runner platform with no bugs because it's simple and isn't filled with useless extras -UNTIL they upgrade it, build a larger platform with excess information and then the processor is using more memory and the "line" of data [processes data in a string] becomes longer and longer in future built programs until it's crap like the rest, looking less toward the main goal and bulking information into the processors work-load. Meaning it takes 'longer' [time] to process everything.
by aka-dj7 years ago
It seems to come up so often, as if faith and logic were mortal enemies. Can you please explain why you see it that way? If you see the opposite, why?Quite frankly, I have NO problem with it.
by sibtain bukhari3 years ago
There is no scientific and logical evidence of self existence of universe, therefore,only logical conclusion is the creator of universe not proving its self existence .
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!
by topgunjager7 years ago
Who can post the best argument about the existence or the non-existence of God and can support their answers using real logic? Don't use faith based logic when proving the existence of God.
by DK5 years ago
Following a debate with AKA Winston on his forum "If you subtract mankind from existence, what is left?" http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89816It is clear that the question is not as obvious as it may first...
by Prakash Ranjan Paul9 months ago
As far as I know, there exist so many Gods ( conceptual ). We can classify them as unscientific Gods and scientific Gods. Of course, the unscientific Gods, because they happen to be unscientific, can't be ' possible '....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.