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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logic and computers is my field. It's you who don't know what logic is my friend. I got a degree in the stuff, and job experience with it. Well I got the whole degree. Logic is logic, and it is the same regardless of whether you are talking Philosophy or Computer Science. Trust me. I took both the Computer Science logic class and the Philosophy logic class (I figured, correctly, that the philosophy version would be an easy credit after having gone through the CompSci version. I was right, Philosophy's logic class covered the exact same material, just with different notation). And you do it all without realizing it, which makes it even more amusing too me. You might as well publish a book titled "Why Paper was a Useless Invention". (Protip: Easy credits can be had by taking the same class in different departments. Especially since the Philosophy versions of things tend to be way easier then their technical counterparts)
Yes. These technologies are built from logic. And yes, it's the same type of logic.
Yes. As I have stated. We agree on this point, stop stating it as if it is a point of disagreement between us. The logical processes I write for a living do not care if the input given to them is correct or faulty, they perform their function with what they are given and give their output. It can not define truth.
No, you, who admitted to not seeing the value in studying logic, have an incorrect understanding of what logic is. I, who have a degree and career based on applied logic, am however informed on the topic you yourself claim to be willfully ignorant of.
I never claimed it was.
Again, I agree. Lots of people on this thread, yourself included, are making "logic" out to be what it is not.
You know nothing of logic. And it's way too amusing reading your posts.
This whole website is built of logical statements that govern how it functions, looks, and acts. The website is in turn run on a box that itself is built of logical circuits that allow it to run logical calculations, and these boxes are interconnected and communicate using logical processes.
It's logic all the way down.
You took a class and think you know everything??
I am not an atheist. I do not think there is any way to use logical argumentation to prove atheism. We agree on this thing, but you assume that because I disagree with you on the value of logic that we must therefore disagree on all subjects.
How many times do I have to point out the points in which we agree before you realize that we agree on those points and stop trying to debate me on them??
The only thing I dispute with you, really, is your foolish assertion that logic has no value, which you communicate using the product of applied logic via computer science.
Yeah, the concept of "sound logic, wrong axiom, wrong answer" and "unsound logic, correct axiom, wrong answer" is kind of a topic taught in a logic class. Usually it's the first thing that is taught. That's what I meant.
Outside of logic classes you have people that think because their logic is right, their answer must be right, without considering the correctness of their axioms, or people who think that because their axiom is right, their answer is right, regardless of the soundness of their logic.
It's an important topic. And I wish it was one kids picked up on automatically, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
After all you say "logic doesn't prove something true automatically, therefore logic is useless", and you seem to think your conclusion is right just because your axiom is correct. But your logic is unsound here. "Logic is useless" does not follow from "logic doesn't prove something true automatically" because proving something true is not the function of logic.
No I am not attempting to classify your argument.
This confusion again stems from the fact that you know nothing about logic.
You are using logic in making your argument because you are using a computer, which does quite a few logical calculations for every single post you make online.
Presumably, you're also on a power grid, and Electrical Engineering?? It also uses quite a bit of applied logic.
And that's extremely funny to me, that you repeatedly insist how useless logic is while benefiting off of the real-world applications of our craft.
It's the same logic. It is not a different thing. Again, I took both classes. And they taught the same thing, so I got an easy three credits.
That's not what GIGO means.
It's not that you need to know the correct answer before making the argument, you need to start with the correct input or axioms to reach a correct conclusion...
Basically GIGO means your logic can be correct and sound, but if you give a logical function wrong data as input, you get wrong data as output.
Like in some of the reports I write professionally. Sometimes they give the wrong output, but I can find it is not because the calculations the report is doing is incorrect, it's because someone logged the wrong date or time in the wrong location, thus producing an incorrect result.
Like in a logical report I write, my report doesn't need to know the on-time percentage before it calculates that number (in fact, it has no possible way of knowing such a thing), but it needs to have the correct "arrival date" and "due date" information to arrive at the correct conclusion using the logical function. That's what GIGO means, and it is the same exact type of logic that Philosophy uses. Just more in-depth and complex then a Philosophy Class typically delves into the topic.
But sorry, that's on me. I think I'm expecting you too know more about logic than you actually do. I'll strive to use less industry terms in the future.
How about so we can continue supplying you with electricity and internet access?? Is that a good enough reason??
I am right there with you on that. RF is full of members who rely on logically fallacious arguments.
You sure don't take criticism well. 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. Your posts are thus the exact same thing as printing a book titled "Paper is a Useless Invention".
Wow!!
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.
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.
You literally have no idea what fallacies are for. Oh my. But that doesn't describe you, does it?? Literally it's almost effortless to do this, if you know how.
Only if your understanding of Boolean logic was gleaned from a ten minute google search that you only did to try to disprove someone who uses logic professionally, because you think google is a suitable resource to debate against someone who majored in the field, and you're under the assumption that and and or is the full extent of the theorem.
Look, bro: There's a lot more to programming than AND and OR. You also need things like IF and THEN and ELSE (which come from, cough cough, classical logic...)
So either Boolean logic is a LOT more than you think it is, or we programmers must use a lot more logic than just Boolean logic.
Which is it?? Is your knowledge of Boolean logic lacking, or do you acknowledge that we programmers use classical logic to give you software too?? It's gotta be one!!
No!! Please either read my points more carefully, or stop deliberately misreading my points. You're doing one or the other, and I honestly can't tell which.
Which is it, out of curiosity??
Anyways I stated that electrical wiring specifically in terms of logic gates and the like is something we have thanks to logic.
Not electricity itself. That much was obvious, so did you miss that obvious point or are you deliberately ignoring my points and strawmanning here??
Fine!!
01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101001 01100100 01101001 01100011 01110101 01101100 01101111 01110101 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110
BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVE.
What do you even think binary is??
You seem to be under the assumption that it is the same thing as computer programming...??
Which... it's not. It's really, really not. It's not even machine language. I greatly suspect that you at least think binary is machine language...
If you are really asking me in all seriousness to render random chunks of text into binary for you as if it proves anything then it shows you know absolutely nothing about computer programming.
In which case... do... do ya really think trying to debate a professional on the topic is a good idea??
Want me to render it as a computer function, which would show more?? I mean it is an argument, so I suppose it is the one thing you've given me so far that is actually an argument and can thus be rendered into a programmatic format.
So it's the least I can do to fulfill that request, even if you asked the wrong thing.
function a(x) =
if (x = "Computers are useless") then "Is a silly statement" else "Is not necessarily a silly statement"
function b(x) =
a(if (x = "Boolean logic is useless") then "Computers are useless" else "Computers are not necessarily useless")
function c(x) =
b(if (x = "Logic is useless") then "Boolean logic is useless" else "Boolean logic is not necessarily useless")
c("Logic is useless") = "Is a silly statement"
Well. There you go. It was the only actual logical argument you asked me to render in a logical function programming form (only kind-of, since you specifically and confusingly asked for binary rather than a format that would actually show anything)
But there you have it, I was able to render it in a programming form.
Annnnd I fully expect whatever you post next will be an attempt to dismantle what I just did without even knowing what any of it means.
It'd be fun to be disappointed.
Nah man, that's the thing.
You said it. You just don't realize ya did.
It brings joy to my heart that someone like you can exist, a person who is so resistant to stating the fact he doesn't understand a topic and who feels the need to not only weigh in but try to defend his points without knowing literally anything about it!! And if so I should not be as amused as I am with this. Very amusing and I hope you do continue!! You don't know what types of logic programming uses, because you have never learned and see no need to learn, but you will insist that I am wrong in asserting that programming uses classical logic, because... I don't really know?? You can't be that willfully ignorant... right?? Which of course is the cowardly option, but understandable given the fact that the "How Aristotle Created the Computer" article sort of blows away all of your arguments in one title. Amazing!! But oh my it is amusing!! 
I think it should be used in all courses, which is what the Socratic Method was largely designed to do. It's actually one of the strengths of the American public educational system historically, although the extensive use of standardized tests nowadays is actually undermining this.
Why not take option 3, at the very least?? Because ignoring my clear evidence against you and repeating your assertion I must not be educated is the only way you can cling on to that feeling of superiority you are apparently chasing like a drug. 
That's an excellent use of critical thinking skills. That sounds to me like critical thinking at its best. (Of course, you should have used ciritical thinking to examine the likelihood of the claimed author.)