Premise 1- mrgoodsmoke works for Ninja20p Premise 2- ninja20p collects 60% of mrgoodsmoke's income premise 3- an idiot is someone that works for another individual and also gives 60% of their income to said person. Therefore- (logically speaking) mrgoodsmoke is an idiot. lol I don't think that, I think mrgoodsmoke has done a great job of explaining what logic is and is not. It isn't based on subjectivity.
I imagine you can have a premise that is subjective and true. For example. Ninja20p's favorite baseball team is the Mets.
Your statement would be a "deontic" statement, and yes, it can be notated in formal logic. If you could create an physical situation in which there was no option other than for me to obey the dictates of the statement, then the only modal interpretation that would hold would be the one in which the notation of your statement was both consistent internally and corespondent to the actual world, (this world). So yeah. Am I making sense here?
The subject/object distinction doesn't ever actually happen in the funtional parts of what you're calling logic, nor in the quantitative aspects. That's basic, first order or predicate logic. If you wanna start trying to account for all subjective possibilities and quantify them into proofs,(logic), then you have to admit modal interpretations into your arsenal of descriptors. And I'd like any individual on this forum to give me an example of subjectivity in the absence or objectivity or vice versa. It's not going to happen, but we gotta get past philosophy 101 if we're actually going to even understand what logic is and does.
This relates to the problems encountered when attempting to form descriptors of objects. Descriptors are descriptors, and object are objects. As far as knowledge of objects goes, you have what's called knowledge de dicto, (or "of the proposition"), knowledge de re, (or "of the thing"), and knowledge de se, (or "of the self" or "self ascribed knowledge). So I can give you a sentence to describe a thing, then you can know a little about it, then you can encounter the actual thing, and you can know a little more, then once you've gathered all the propositional, or quantifiable, or measurable information about said thing, you can decide how you feel about it and ascribe your own set of properties to it then theres nothing left to know about it. Am I making any sense here?
Surely the term of "logic" and its meaning can be discussed without having to have studied psychology 101. Also having a educated opinion on psychology etc does not make you any more logical in you reasoning than the next person. What would be the point in having objective logic in all its scientific mystery if we were not qualified as humans to comprehend its relevance subjectively? You have said a few times that logic is both subjective and Objective. I never suggested it wasnt either. Here is your statements that has made your sense of logic vulnerable. "It just irritates me that I studied formal logic for 6 years and I get out into the world and people just wanna say that it all has to do w/ opinions."
To summarize, being able to have your own individual view of something does not make that thing subjective. If you summarize it, it becomes subjective, it becomes bias. :|
Wow, you guys are really going into the inner depths of this topic... just relax and smoke a bowl or two, live and love... everyones getting all worked up over defining logic, haha..
Should add false dilemma/dichotomy to the list. I've seen it used around here a bit and I don't think I saw it on the list. False dilemma Presenting a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, despite the fact that there are other options. Examples: "Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle." "Either the eyewitness saw the alien spacecraft or he's a liar."
I was actually looking for this a few days ago, thanks. I think politics is by far the most used changing of the subject.
People have spoken of other logical fallacies I could add, so I wanted to see if others on here like the idea of me editing the first post by updating it with the new ones mentioned. Leave comments belowww
within reason it would be quite logical to continue the list on the OP because these pages might get pretty long and irksome to go through
I also think Appeal to Tradition and Naturalistic fallacies should be added. They're kind of related. Appeal to Tradition Basically saying this is right because we've always done it this way. "Murdering innocents is wrong, because it has been considered so since the dawn of civilization." Naturalistic Fallacy/Appeal to Nature This behavior is natural; therefore, this behavior is morally acceptable.