Thread 24533617

>Logic is innate, so I don't need to study it.
Only people who haven't studied any logic at all say this.

>>24533617 (OP)
Hey, works with talking to women and having sex. So I think logicchads are the same.

>>24533617 (OP)
Logic only requires minimal study to be used and understood correctly. It's like hygiene, you don't need to shower for an hour, 5 minutes is enough

>>24533626
You haven't ever studied any logic have you?

>>24533635
Only because I majored in maths, which explains why I don't respect logic as a topic in and of itself

>>24533617 (OP)
>>24533635
You aren't making a strong case for studying logic with your low quality posts.

>>24533640
Well did you study any logic as part of the math? Any Euclidean geometry with proofs for example? Or symbolic logic?
>explains why I don't respect logic as a topic in and of itself
No it doesn't, you need to elaborate.

>>24533643
The topic is the fact only people who haven't studied logic say logic is innate and that they therefore don't need to study it.

>>24533617 (OP)
21 rules for direction of the mind is the best primer for logic. It is very short, concise and goes over the essentials of logic.

>>24533646
Yeah the most important thing that people seem to miss with logic is how to know if a certain statement is true, following from premises made. The other important thing that is ignored is how disproving a statement with a single counter example is much easier than proving that the statement is true in general, especially in abstract matters like mathematics, and completely impossible when it comes to the real world. That's why logic isn't that important for most people, it only practically pertains to rational entities like words, numbers and geometric figures.

reminds of the time I watched how to walk videos on youtube.

>>24533617 (OP)
The amount of times I've seen someone claim to have debunked an argument or bested someone in a debate with "logical thought" and their arguments are the most illogical wishful thinking with tons of unconsidered assumptions shows that logic is not innate.
To tons of people, "logical thought" means "common sense" and "intuitive".

>>24533656
Cool, I'll look into it. Here's another old book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-Royal_Logic
There's also Symbolic Logic by Lewis Carroll.

>>24533674
You'd probably enjoy Boole's books on logic if you're reading it historically

Obviously Frege too but I'm sure you've already read at least the Begriffsschrift

>>24533656

this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_the_Direction_of_the_Mind

>>24533662
>That's why logic isn't that important for most people, it only practically pertains to rational entities like words, numbers and geometric figures.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

>>24533679
Then fill in the gaps, retard ?

>>24533677
Yes, the one from Descartes. It has philosophy and math problems but it even dissects jokes and riddles, for example the riddle of the sphinx from Oedipus is taken apart.

>>24533681
No. You're the one with the positions that you majoring in math explains why you don't respect logic as a topic in and of itself, and that logic only requires minimal study to be used and understood correctly. You need to back it up. Logic is deeper and broader than math.
>isn't that important for most people
>only practically pertains to rational entities like words
Yeah, most people use words.

>>24533640
>Only because I'm an undergrad*
Fixed it for you

>>24533699
Grad students are cucks

>>24533681
Also you never answered if you studied logic as part of a math course, or if you studied Euclidean proofs.

>>24533704
Sure. Knowing only basic analysis and algebra makes you a retard though, which is generally worse

>>24533694
>Yeah, most people use words.
To represent reality. Proving something formally in the hope that the proof also applies to the underlying reality it represents is delusional. The domain of logic is much more limited than what intellectuals who rely to heavily on rational would what it to be.

>>24533694
>Yeah, most people use words.
To represent reality. Proving something formally in the hope that the proof also applies to the underlying reality it represents is delusional. The domain of logic is much more limited than what intellectuals who rely too heavily on rationality would want it to be.

>>24533709
OMG if you didn't take the analysis super premium pro max course you know nothing about logic or mathematics. Truth is most of mathematics, and logic for that matter, are circular if you study them at a fundamental level. Being "more" logical or being a grad student won't give you a "deeper" understanding of anything. It's mathematics, not philosophy you retard

>>24533712
Sounds like you only learned about logic streamlined for use in mathematical application. Logic goes beyond that. Grammar, logic and rhetoric were removed from public school but they study it in yeshivas and in Freemasonry.

>>24533714
No, it's "if you didn't take a basic modal theory class you know almost nothing about logic." The world is bigger than your undergrad curriculum

>>24533724
>if you didn't take a basic modal theory class you know almost nothing about logic
it has absolutely no practical application when it comes to human reasoning.

>>24533724
>if you didn't take a basic modal theory class you know almost nothing about logic
It has absolutely no practical application when it comes to human reasoning you pedantic goblin. Being a grad student means you specialize in that subject, which automatically excludes all other mathematics students who are just undergrads or graduate students in other very narrow fields of study. Literally the opposite of something that you suggest should be "common knowledge".

>>24533722
>Sounds like you only learned about logic streamlined for use in mathematical application
Yes because it's the only place where logic actually has a practical use that is also well defined ?

>>24533734
>It has absolutely no practical application when it comes to human reasoning
Neither does most math, what's your point?
>which automatically excludes all other mathematics students
Yes, meaning you should stay in your lane fuckwit. Getting a passing grade on a few low level courses doesn't make you an authority on logic

>>24533745
>meaning you should stay in your lane fuckwit
A math PHD that doesn't specialize in that very specific field of study isn't any more qualified to talk about this topic than an undergraduate according to you own pedantic logic. It doesn't have anything to do with you education level. Truth is this is not a peer reviewed magazine where we suck "expert" cock you pathetic academia cuck.

>>24533740
Getting back to the topic of the thread, you only studied this narrow subfield of logic, so you know nothing about the rest of logic, and yet you have an opinion about that rest which you didn't study.

>>24533766
>so you know nothing about the rest of logic, and yet you have an opinion about that rest which you didn't study.
Again according to your own standards, who knows about "the rest of logic" apart from some very modern, very recent extremely specialized scholars ? It ties back to OP's original message, who seems to want everyone to be a PhD in logic or philosophy, which is obviously completely useless, retarded and gay.

>>24533776
I am OP and I made the post you replied to. This discussion is pointless. You know about a very limited very specialized part of logic, and nothing about the rest. Your opinion about the rest is not interesting. All you have done is prove the thesis I made in the OP, that people who haven't studied logic say you don't need to study it. You haven't studied any logic beyond the narrow specialized part of it in your math, and you think virtually nobody needs to study any of the rest of logic. You're talking about something you know nothing about.

Why do they study logic at yeshivas and in Freemasonry?

Asking for the third time now, did you study Euclidean geometry with proofs?

>>24533800
>Why do they study logic at yeshivas and in Freemasonry?
You're a schizo and a retard. Your perspective is completely disconnected from any sort of pratical reality.

>>24533776
OP again, I'm not that guy but it's bullshit that only "some very modern, very recent extremely specialized scholars" or someone who is a "PhD in logic or philosophy" know logic beyond the specialized part you studied. Yes, today very few people learn any logic. But again, they study it in yeshivas and in Freemasonry, and you can self-study logic. Also logic used to be a part of public education but was phased out during the first half of the 20th century, with the nail in the coffin being the removal of Euclidean proofs with New Math in the 1950s. Are you aware of the classical education, the seven liberal arts, the Trivium and the Quadrivium?

>>24533805
Not an argument. They study it because it gives you power over yourself and others. It was removed from the public because it makes them manipulable.

>>24533800
When they say they studied "logic" in your screenshot, they obviously aren't talking about some specific "modal logic" the other "graduate level" poster was referring to. They most likely only studied an even more limited set of things than what your average math undergrad has studied, which is modus ponens, inference rules and all that crap. Again, you clowns need to acknowledge the fact that logic has formally existed as a subject of study for thousands of years now. If you limit the knowledge of logic to the last developments in the field in the past 100 years, you're just a pedantic, clueless and off topic.

>>24533815
Total strawman shitpost, not even going to bother breaking that garbage down. Stick to the topic instead of derailing with garbage. Or better yet, leave.

>>24533820
It even says it in your screenshot, I'm not strawmaning at all
>Logic : the study of reasoning and argumentation
It is exclusively studied for practical purposes. I.e. : making bullshit arguments and bamboozling retards like you

>>24533707
>Also you never answered if you studied logic as part of a math course, or if you studied Euclidean proofs.
I've done both. Formal logic, and logic & switching are considered compulsory for my degrees in math and computer science.

>>24533824
What's your point retard? Constantly strawmanning and moving goalposts. You were strawmanning me, OP. I'm not going to go back and reread the bullshit you and the other guy were talking about in your stupid tangent you were going out on. Stick to discussing the OP topic or leave. I suggest you just keep quiet because you have nothing to add to the topic. Go study logic, you need it.

Can anyone talk about the logic in 5.9 of elements? It's one of the shortest propositions I've read in the book, is saying "because it is" and "because it does" all the logic needed? And can this logic be transferred to image board conversation as well and does such laconic logic insult effort posters and people who use long winded rhetoric?

>>24534195
suppose A:C = B:C, then A = B
because if A != B, then A:C != B:C, but we already supposed A:C = B:C ("but they do" part), therefore A = B.

likewise, suppose C:A = C:B, then A = B
because if A != B, then C:A != C:B, but we already supposed C:A = C:B ("but it does" part), therefore A = B.

this is just proof by contrapositive. ie. you show X implies Y by showing that assuming not-X, you get not-Y.

>>24534410
Eww, you algebratized euclid and that's disgusting

>>24534455
welcome to modern mathematics.
you can thank the analytic philosophers for this.

okay what are some books to learn logic?

If I say op is a faggot can I compare him to a faggot like line B and have op be line A? It shows that op is in fact a faggot and even exceeds the magnitude of mere faggotry and is a giant faggot therefore op is a giant faggot because he is?

>>24534776
Forgot pic

>>24534680
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/508076799

>>24533617 (OP)
It appears to me that logical fallacies are innate because I uneducated people committing them every day.

It appears to me that logical fallacies are innate because I see uneducated people committing them every day.