Logic fans: take a stand

[struggle4progress]

Poll question: Logic fans: take a stand

Since this forum frequently resounds with loud cries, I'm logical and you're not!, perhaps it would be interesting to learn what logical systems are favored here

[rrneck]

1. I bet

I won't understand a damn word anybody posts in this thread.

:hide:

[Mojambo]

2. You won't be alone.

;-)

[Laelth]

3. Logic is highly overrated. It's not very persuasive at all. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[struggle4progress]

10. OW Holmes Jr said (I think in his book on Common Law) something like "The only

reason people go to Court is because they believe their own arguments have merit and that their opponents' arguments have none"

[nevergiveup]

4. I voted Fuzzy

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair, Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy wuzzy? This is my kind of logic.

[snot]

5. This is counter-productive. There are logical people on DU who don't know what brand they've got.

[struggle4progress]

11. If you mean that one may reason well wihout adopting a particular formal system, I agree 100%

[Silent3]

13. And probably there are at least a few illogical people who nevertheless...

...can handle one or several forms of formal notation.

Most of the problems of logic I encounter in forums such as this aren't matters of error in complex formal logic, but errors in seeing how bad assumptions and vague definitions lead to or obscure very simple errors of logic.

[Mojambo]

6. What kind does Spock use? I wanna use Spock-o-logic. n/t

[Silent3]

7. Had to vote for Boolean algebra.

Being a software engineer, after all.

Curiously, I don't recall too many loud cries of the sort you mention, although if one can't/won't make a distinction between instances of pointing out particular logical failings of particular arguments and broad-brush personal boasting and personal insults, I can see how one might end up with that kind of impression.

I can also see how sting of often being on the losing side of arguments about logic might contribute to that sensation. :evilgrin:

[struggle4progress]

16. Interesting. A vote for boolean algebra, combined with a disguised personal attack

with various other rhetorical games

[Silent3]

18. Gotta make those words work hard.

What's the fun if they don't operate at least a couple of different levels? :)

[Warpy]

8. Lewis Carroll using Quine's notation system

It was symbolic logic and I still have the grade report to prove that I'm the one with the logical mind in most arguments.

[struggle4progress]

9. I suppose Carroll is at least a ready source of examples to put on tests to see whether

students can correctly determine whether or not an argument such as

No muffins are wholesome; all bun are unwholesome. <And so:> Buns are not muffins

is correct, or to see whether they can actually deduce something from a snarled chain of premises such as

No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste; no modern poetry is free from affectation; all your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles; no affected poetry is popular among people of real taste; no ancient poem is on the subject of soap bubbles

And I'd guess his counter-marked bi- and trilateral diagrams are probably not inferior to Pierce's diagrammatic logic, though such Venn-style techniques seem limited in practical applicability -- and I'd rather read Pierce than Carroll, since Pierce is a more serious thinker

Quine's notation seems to me lifted more or less directly from the Russell-Whitehead tradition, down to the dreadful dots and the use of (_) to indicate a universal quantifier. Quine is meticulous and competent, and sometimes interesting (as when he obtains a combinatorial version of Fermat's Last Theorem) but he's usually not inspiring as a logician: I suppose some people are still sometimes interested in Quine's "New Foundations" view of set theory, though it seems more cumbersome than Zermelo-Frankel or Neumann-Bernays-Godel axiomatizations

[moggie]

12. TTL

7400 series.

[Odin2005]

14. Boolean.

But I have Asperger's, so I actually think that way. Maybe that's why so many of us are computer nerds! :rofl:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. I voted for boolean logic

even though it's somewhat limiting when used in more in-depth debates because it's hard to be nuanced with a limited set of possibilities.

Maybe it's the computer nerd/software engineer in me, but I like the elegance of a premise being either true or false. And since nearly all arguments can be broken down to their constituent parts and addressed with boolean logic, it's a useful tool. Unfortunately, many people don't know how to break an argument down, so boolean logic is wasted on them.

[BurtWorm]

17. Pretzel.

:headbang:

[bananas]

19. You left out Quantum Logic

Or maybe I should say, "you probably left out quantum logic"?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic