Wow!!
You sure don't take criticism well.
Let's take this step by step.
It
is the same logic. Boolean logic
requires the rest of logic in order to work. Just because
you haven't taken any computer science classes doesn't make this not the case.
And now I will show
exactly how the difference is just notation. Let's take an argument of whether or not an arrival was on time or late, as an example. Let's make a philosophical argument for it, and build a comp-sci function for it:
Philosophical Argument Logic
First we state the Axioms:
The arrival date was 10/23/2017
The due date was 10/22/2017
Now we introduce the Logical Argument:
If the due date is before the arrival date, then the shipment was late, otherwise it was on time
Finally we reach our Conclusion based on our available information:
Therefore: The shipment was late.
Computer Science Logic
First we define our function of logic:
function(arrival, due) =
if due < arrival then “Late” else “On-Time”
Then we calculate the value of the function given our inputs.
function(10/23/2017, 10/22/2017) = Late
These are simply two approaches for implementing logic, a philosophical and a technical approach.
They are the same thing, but with a different notation and expression.
Show me where the above two instances of "logic" are different.
Incorrect.
I don't think those schools yet offer full degree programs on the subject. I don't see why they couldn't, honestly, but they don't to my knowledge.
Because logic doesn't care about the rightness of the variables given to it. You input your garbage into the website, and the
logic of the website tells it to store the data and then display it.
You're acting as if logic is a magical way to determine whether or not an argument is good or not. You're doing the
exact same foolish thing you're stating all these other people are doing.
... Really?? You don't remember
a = a from your one college class?? You need me to explain the
first basic law of logic for you?? The Law of Identity?? Are you
seriously asking this basic of a question or did you just think it sounded snarky??
That should have been one of the first things they taught you in that class... Did you
really even take that one class??
But, look man, I understand. If they didn't even teach you
a = a in that class you took, then I can
totally see why you'd be led to the conclusion logic is useless. Because if you're telling the truth and that was
honestly never covered, your teacher must have been
incompetent, and I cannot fault you at all for your misconceptions.
So if, in all seriousness, you don't know the answer to that question you asked, then I totally understand your point of view. Your teacher must have been abysmal, and your view that this is all "useless" is likely informed by his or her incompetence, which is understandable.
Philosophy of logic does not deal with the classification of arguments.
It's
exactly the same. Give me
any logical argument and I can turn it into a logical, computer science function for you.
Any one. Bring whatever you got.
Again, I am fully capable of writing
any logical argument as a function. Just give me any example and I will
gladly show you.
Are you saying the
only value anything has is whether or not it can show proof?? Because there's a
whole lot of value in what I do, which
is logic, no matter how hard you want to assert that logic has different "types". Or, at least, the people who pay me seem to think there's some value.
No.
It's not.
Yes. Your computer performs countless logical calculations in retrieving the web page and video from that URL and playing it for you. Just because
you aren't personally doing the logical work, doesn't mean that logical work isn't being done for your benefit. There's quite a bit of logical calculations in the act of streaming your cat video.
AND/OR gates
are logical. And I just
dare you to find any house with functional electricity in the last twenty years that doesn't use them. They're called
logic gates for a reason!! And they're the reason you can have two switches that control the same light source!!
It's not math, it's
logic.
You are confusing
logic with the concept of a
logical fallacy. The whole point of a
logical fallacy is that it is
not logic.
Your whole series of posts is a huge confusion of the term "logic" with "debate". And to be totally fair, your
far from the only person on this thread doing that.
The programming equivalent would be, essentially, asserting that the output of a function is incorrect because the person who wrote the code was a murderer.
The logic of the function itself is unaffected by the programmer's status of being a murderer, thus why this personal status is irrelevant to the function of the program, thus fallacious.
So it's not
math it's
logic I'm talking about in wiring hour home. Again, you require Boolean logic,
and and
or gates, to wire your house!!
Boolean logic is
built off of, and
requires, the logic that came before it. You can't use Boolean logic without the basic laws of logic, like
a = a for example (and again, if they didn't even teach you
a = a in your class, I understand why you think this is all useless).
Boolean logic is an extension of logic like Calculus is an extension of math.
And
just like Boolean logic, just because Calculus was invented
much later, it doesn't change the fact that it still relies on the
same math as the ancient Greeks used!!
Here's the thing, though. Even if you
refuse to accept the truth that Boolean logic is an extension of logic...
it doesn't matter. Because
logician George Boole came up with his ideas of Boolean logic... by studying logic!! Therefore, the study of logic
still has given you your computer and your house's electrical wiring!! Because the
study of logic, gave us
Boolean logic. Thus everything
Boolean logic gives us is a
product of the study of logic.
So, in
conclusion. Saying the study of logic is "useless" as you claim, means that the results of the study of logic, such as Boolean logic, are also useless. Which means that the product of Boolean logic, like computers, are also useless.
And these things are useful. Therefore, your argument that studying logic is useless, is
silly.
Your posts are thus the
exact same thing as printing a book titled "Paper is a Useless Invention".