Along with logic, part of the larger subject of rational & critical thought, eh.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Logic Be a Required Course in Public High Schools?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
I sense some sour grapes here.
You're right in a sense, but wrong in the sense that really matters: yes, a valid induction from premises is only as valid as the premises, but recognizing when a conclusion doesn't validly flow from its premises is very useful for spotting made-up nonsense.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I have no problem with it. I just think it is inappropriate for RF members to require it.
Wirey
Fartist
It would kill the forum. You clod! Oh, wait, you said logic, not manners. My bad.
On critical thinking, but going back to before high school: I remember a project in grade 4 where we had to find stories about the same topic from 3 different newspapers (yes, papers - I'm old) and identify the similarities and differences.
Super Universe
Defender of God
You don't need to take a course in logic to be able to understand when a conclusion does not match the premise.
It's a complete waste of time. No truth is ever revealed by logic.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Critical reasoning skills ARE taught in school. Every subject except physical education teaches some kind of critical reasoning.
Logic is not critical reasoning. You can't use logic to determine what is true and what is not true. Even if the other person is completely insane that does not mean YOU are right. Both you and the other person can be wrong.
You guys think you can use logic to disprove religion to people. You can't.
For years I've more or less ignored your posts as worthless rants, SU, but I'm now coming to appreciate both their comedic value and their value in helping me to understand how misguided someone can be. Keep up the good work! Seriously.
True, I do not use formal logic RF, nor past my debating experience. I study formal logic and the related fallacies primarily to understand how many misuse it.
Super Universe
Defender of God
When you do not address the subject and instead insult the person that is called an Ad Hominem.
Bro, the computer and internet you are using to express that opinion was built by logic. Computer Science, which is like one of the most important things in the modern day, is an extension of the field of logic.
If the web designer of religiousforums hadn't studied logic, you could not have made this post.
You're confusing logic as a whole with just an extremely small subset of applied logic to the field of debate.
"Something can be a valid statement but still be untrue" is a statement that requires knowledge of the laws of logic to make.
I'm not an atheist, logical fallacies are again a tiny subset of the whole field, and again you are making use of the study of logic right now. You are able to read this text because of people studying logic!!
So many people on this thread reducing a huge and important discipline down to just the idea of "logical fallacies", completely ignorant of all the logic that goes into their ability to even make these posts.
True. Garbage in garbage out. But bad data being a thing doesn't invalidate the entire study of, again, the subject that enables your very internet posts!!
If anything it's ignorance of what logic really is that leads people to think "logic" is about "truth" or "debating" or some other stupid thing like that. You yourself appear to think it's nothing more than that.
So yeah, we need lots of education about logic. But not for the reasons OP lists. It's because there are so many posters here who see "logic" as having a single application, an application to nothing more than argumentation.
OK!
It is more common for apologists and evangelists to use formal logic to try vainly prove the existence of God. Most atheists and strong agnostics do not try and prove God does not exist nor that any one religion is false. They realize you cannot prove the negative, The predominant view is that there is not any objective evidence to justify the belief in God, nor the validity of religions that believe in God(s).
See, I sort of agree with you here. Logic is fairly different from the things people are talking about with this thread.
But then you go and say ridiculous things like
Just because logic isn't what people are making it out to be doesn't mean it's a "waste of time".
Again. You're on a computer right now. You are on a device built through the understanding and study of logic!!
Super Universe said:
Not remotely the purpose of logic. I do not of any 'truth' that has been revealed any where nor any how.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Bro, the computer and internet you are using to express that opinion was built by logic. Computer Science, which is like one of the most important things in the modern day, is an extension of the field of logic.
If the web designer of religiousforums hadn't studied logic, you could not have made this post.
You're confusing logic as a whole with just an extremely small subset of applied logic to the field of debate.
"Something can be a valid statement but still be untrue" is a statement that requires knowledge of the laws of logic to make.
I'm not an atheist, logical fallacies are again a tiny subset of the whole field, and again you are making use of the study of logic right now. You are able to read this text because of people studying logic!!
So many people on this thread reducing a huge and important discipline down to just the idea of "logical fallacies", completely ignorant of all the logic that goes into their ability to even make these posts.
True. Garbage in garbage out. But bad data being a thing doesn't invalidate the entire study of, again, the subject that enables your very internet posts!!
If anything it's ignorance of what logic really is that leads people to think "logic" is about "truth" or "debating" or some other stupid thing like that. You yourself appear to think it's nothing more than that.
So yeah, we need lots of education about logic. But not for the reasons OP lists. It's because there are so many posters here who see "logic" as having a single application, an application to nothing more than argumentation.
The computer and the internet were built by logic? Boolean logic is not the same thing as the ancient philosophy of logic. And, Boolean logic will not determine truth from fiction. You all have an incorrect understanding of what logic is. It is not some pure truth or formula for determining what is true and what is not true.
If the web designer of RF had not studied logic I could not have made the post? Coding has nothing to do with the philosophy of logic.
I'm confusing logic is a whole with just an extremely small subset? That's because people confuse it. This topic is about using the philosophy of logic, not Boolean logic. I took a stupid logic class in college. It was an absolute waste of time. People think that logic is truth. It's not. They think that faith is illogical, it's not. They think that you shouldn't believe in things that cannot be proven but the truth is that their idea of what constitutes proof is where the problem is.
Something can be a valid statement and be untrue requires knowledge of the laws of logic to make? But those "laws" are learned by growing up and talking to people. Even children know when you are trying to change the subject on them and not give them the answer.
I am making use of the logic by making an argument? So you can classify an argument, so what? Do you think that means you are right and they are wrong? It doesn't. If a person is wrong once does that mean that everything they ever say is wrong? What if they were wrong twice in their life?
If you want to argue about Boolean logic, that is fine, but that is not the topic here.
Garbage in equals garbage out? Correct. For a logical argument to be true, you have to know the correct answer BEFORE you begin an argument. Logic does not provide the answer.
Super Universe
Defender of God
They realize they cannot prove the negative? This is such an incorrect atheist assumption. If I say a box is empty all we have to do is open the box and look inside.
If God really does not exist then all you have to do is learn everything there is to know about the universe and you will know the answer. Just because it's difficult does not mean it's impossible to prove a negative.
Super Universe
Defender of God
See, I sort of agree with you here. Logic is fairly different from the things people are talking about with this thread.
But then you go and say ridiculous things like
Just because logic isn't what people are making it out to be doesn't mean it's a "waste of time".
The philosophy of logic is different from Boolean logic, that is correct. People confuse them.
Boolean logic you can't determine what is truth and what is not true. Boolean logic can only determine a course of action, if this, then do that.
You're confusing the word logic with some kind of absolute truth. It's not, it never was and never will be. Ask a computer to explain God, see what happens.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Logic is not about finding truth? Exactly, but atheists don't understand that.
I posted this in another forum in response to a similar discussion.
There are two points that must be understood before one wades in (with heave rubber hip waders) before venturing into the world of formal logic. First, objective physical evidence may be used for the process of falsification in scientific methods only, and not to prove nor support a claim of 'truth.' Second logical deduction cannot demonstrate nor prove a claim of truth. Logical deduction involves the construction of sylogisms where the conclusions are not necessarily true, because to be accepted the propositions must be accepted as true. Many sylogisms in apologetic arguments are dependent on propositions that are only accepted by those that believe in the conclusion.
Source: Syllogism - Wikipedia
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
There are two points that must be understood before one wades in (with heave rubber hip waders) before venturing into the world of formal logic. First, objective physical evidence may be used for the process of falsification in scientific methods only, and not to prove nor support a claim of 'truth.' Second logical deduction cannot demonstrate nor prove a claim of truth. Logical deduction involves the construction of sylogisms where the conclusions are not necessarily true, because to be accepted the propositions must be accepted as true. Many sylogisms in apologetic arguments are dependent on propositions that are only accepted by those that believe in the conclusion.
Source: Syllogism - Wikipedia
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
at what point do things become evident, and who is deciding what is and isn't evident?
how many things human are past logical deduction?
if everybody had good conscience than some things come to be self evident.
merely making pronunciations of someone's logical fallacies, doesn't add one thing to any argument.
there are many things beyond logic that extend to one's conscience, or their creativity, or innate sense of being.
What holds true for one doesn't always hold true for another. everybody employs their own sense of what is true.
anyways RF should not hold people to strict forms of logic. the scope of questioning would narrow significantly. you might as well go to a science forum.
how many things human are past logical deduction?
if everybody had good conscience than some things come to be self evident.
merely making pronunciations of someone's logical fallacies, doesn't add one thing to any argument.
there are many things beyond logic that extend to one's conscience, or their creativity, or innate sense of being.
What holds true for one doesn't always hold true for another. everybody employs their own sense of what is true.
anyways RF should not hold people to strict forms of logic. the scope of questioning would narrow significantly. you might as well go to a science forum.