On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
landondcelkind.com
On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#2I find it a little strange to put the date 1913 on this title, when it’s actually a fairly recent article, about something from 1913.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#3I find it a little strange to put the date 1913 on this title, when it’s actually a fairly recent article, about something from 1913.
You confound complexes and sums. (The preamble and the article comprises the web page, but the web page is not a complex of the article and itself.)
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#4I find it a little strange to put the date 1913 on this title, when it’s actually a fairly recent article, about something from 1913.
You confound complexes and sums. (The preamble and the article comprises the web page, but the web page is not a complex of the article and itself.)
I might be too dumb to understand what you are saying. But, is it in the lines of: "it can be considered that the actual information is the digitised text from 1913, which is arguably more important than the digitisation of it, and when"?
If so, I agree.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
You confound complexes and sums. (The preamble and the article comprises the web page, but the web page is not a complex of the article and itself.)
I might be too dumb to understand what you are saying. But, is it in the lines of: "it can be considered that the actual information is the digitised text from 1913, which is arguably more important than the digitisation of it, and when"? If so, I agree.
I think the poster is using the content of the article to make a joke.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#6I wonder if Coffey's logic book was worse than most of the time. I have not read it, but it's available: https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft
I have strong feelings about the usefulness of this sort of logic despite its flaws, and would have been interested to know his thoughts on W.S. Jevons' book.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#7I wonder if Coffey's logic book was worse than most of the time. I have not read it, but it's available: https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft I have strong feelings about the usefulness of this sort of logic despite its flaws, and would have been interested to know his thoughts on W.S. Jevons' book.
That sort of logic is of really limited usefulness. It does not even allow, strictly speaking, to take "Horse is an animal" and derive "a horse's head is an animal's head". That's is why mathematicians tended to disregard logic as useless for the maths up until the late XIX century when they actually bothered to invent the mathematical logic -- that's when the modern delusion that "logic is a part of mathematics" apparently is originated. It's not, it's still a part of (mostly scholastic) philosophy.
Russell has a rather nice sum of problems with Aristotle's logic in his "History of Western Philosophy", actually.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#8I wonder if Coffey's logic book was worse than most of the time. I have not read it, but it's available: https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft I have strong feelings about the usefulness of this sort of logic despite its flaws, and would have been interested to know his thoughts on W.S. Jevons' book.
That sort of logic is of really limited usefulness. It does not even allow, strictly speaking, to take "Horse is an animal" and derive "a horse's head is an animal's head". That's is why mathematicians tended to disregard logic as useless for the maths up until the late XIX century when they actually bothered to invent the mathematical logic -- that's when the modern delusion that "logic is a part of mathematics" app…
It is useless in any situation in which absolute rigor is required, but its close relation to human language makes it excellent for developing logical habits of thought in practical situations. Proper mathematical logic fixes its biggest problems, and is incredibly useful in its own way --- I don't mean to dismiss it in any way --- but as a tool for developing non-mathematician non-philosopher people's rational capabilities, I still hold it's unmatched because of its verbal, intuitive character.
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#9I wonder if Coffey's logic book was worse than most of the time. I have not read it, but it's available: https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft I have strong feelings about the usefulness of this sort of logic despite its flaws, and would have been interested to know his thoughts on W.S. Jevons' book.
That sort of logic is of really limited usefulness. It does not even allow, strictly speaking, to take "Horse is an animal" and derive "a horse's head is an animal's head". That's is why mathematicians tended to disregard logic as useless for the maths up until the late XIX century when they actually bothered to invent the mathematical logic -- that's when the modern delusion that "logic is a part of mathematics" app…
You express strong views about mathematical logic (i.e. first-order logic) as part of mathematics, but do you disregard the contributions of first-order logic to the theory of computation, or do you consider the theory of computation to be part of philosophy rather than mathematics?
Re: On Logic, and How Not to Do It (1913)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sort of logic is of really limited usefulness. It does not even allow, strictly speaking, to take "Horse is an animal" and derive "a horse's head is an animal's head". That's is why mathematicians tended to disregard logic as useless for the maths up until the late XIX century when they actually bothered to invent the mathematical logic -- that's when the modern delusion that "logic is a part of mathematics" app…
It is useless in any situation in which absolute rigor is required, but its close relation to human language makes it excellent for developing logical habits of thought in practical situations. Proper mathematical logic fixes its biggest problems, and is incredibly useful in its own way --- I don't mean to dismiss it in any way --- but as a tool for developing non-mathematician non-philosopher people's rational capab…
This "verbal, intuitive character" is its biggest flaw: it makes grammar look like it is logic, while it is not. That's how you get "cogito ergo sum" instead of "cogitationes sunt", or the ontological argument.