How would that determination be possible, if the very thing asked about requires the use of it? — Mww

But of course you have to have mind and some intelligence as to find Logic. I don't expect logic from cockroaches. But seems to me that intelligence might not be the main requirement for it. I think recently that working hard with your own self might be the main obstacle for Logic but still I'm not sure about it.
I m really surprised though from many answers I see here how many people underestimate logic. Thinking about it like useless or can't be possible or myth or being something abstract. I didn't expect that at all since for me, I insist, is one of the most important matter in human life. Not to say the most important one.

Great definition. Thanks for sharing. :up:
I feel that the Classic Logic and Modal Logic not too much useful for my own daily life applications. Maybe it is because I don't know much about them too, but I feel they are more suitable and useful for the specialised applications in the technological fields.

I find the Informal Logic more useful and practical for my own daily life applications such as debating, discussing and negotiating. I am a newbie student for the subject, and have been reading the books trying to learn more about it myself.

Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work. — Corvus

You're right but, as some say, we seem to have run out of options. Thanks though for the word of caution. I'll be more careful in the future.

No worries mate. I appreciate your pointing out, because when we ask about something, and thinking together for the answers, it is a moment that our consciousness get expansion. Thanks a lot.

Plus there is intuition,which is an immediate non discursive awareness or thought — Protagoras

But again I don't think logic generates people's acts. I see it exactly as the progress that human mind can do as to "judge" all these intuitions and non discursive thoughts. Like filter them. I don't say people's acts are driven by logic but that logic can lead in better decisions, acts, even prevent intuitions that are bad for us.

Not to say the most important one. — dimosthenis9

I would venture to say exactly that. Would mathematical logic, and propositional logic in general, even be possible, if the human way of thinking wasn’t itself logical?

The inherent circularity in that is embarrassingly obvious, but whatcha gonna do, when the question just begs asking.

How could you know that? — dimosthenis9

Not everyone here is unhappy, but there are a lot. You can know that by just reading what they write. People here are pretty open about their lives, worries, and problems.

Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? — dimosthenis9

Of course not. I only said that logic is not the mechanism by which most of our decisions are handled. As I noted, very little of our mental life is taken up by logical or conscious thinking.

It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. — dimosthenis9

I didn't say people who use logic extensively are less happy than people who don't, only that I don't see people who spend a lot of time in self-reflection as happier than others. On the other hand, I think a case could be made that unnecessary self-reflection does make you unhappy. That's just based on an impression. I don't have any specific evidence.

If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it. — dimosthenis9

This sounds like the process I described - the motivation comes from somewhere else. You call it a psychological urge, which makes sense. Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse.

That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it. — dimosthenis9

Again, you seem to be describing the same process I did. You do bring up a question I haven't addressed - is logic the best method to guide our actions? I say "no," or at least "not necessarily." If it works for you, good. It doesn't work for me and many other people.

Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse. — T Clark

Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? If the impulse is totally wrong for someone and for society and logic can stop it. Isn't that something that improves your life??
Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? I can't see any other better way. How you moderate your actions then if not logical?
And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then?

Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? — dimosthenis9

It's not necessary, but I didn't say it might not be valuable. It's just not the only way and, in my opinion, not the best way, at least for me.

Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? — dimosthenis9

I think you and I are hitting on an important factor here. We both wrote "at least for me." That's the point - different styles work differently for different people. I'm a civil engineer. I guess you'd say, and I'd probably agree with you, that engineering involves logical thinking. Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it. When you're done, you can build the world back up from those little pieces. And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc.

How you moderate your actions then if not logical? — dimosthenis9

You wrote about psychological urges. It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it.

And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then? — dimosthenis9

I think most people address most problems using their intuition rather than by any self-conscious process such as logic. It's true, as an engineer there were many times when I had to apply a formal decision making process. That's really what design is. In the end, that has to be somewhat logical because it has to be presented in such a way that other people can understand why you made the decisions you did. Many times that logical process was used to justify, certify, decisions that had been made intuitively.

You are right that there are many people who are very good at dealing with problems in their work with moderation and reason and, sometimes, logic, but who are unable to do that in their private lives.

I would never guess that you were engineer with your statements. I was counting engineers on my side at that "fight" for Logic. Surprised really.

Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it — T Clark

That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better!

1.You take a problem (whatever kind of problem I don't care) and break it in pieces as you mentioned. The tiniest pieces it is possible! The "atomic" pieces of each problem to put it that way. You do that till you reach the Root. Or at least as close to the Root someone can get!

2.When you reach the Root. You take a really really good look in each every tiny piece. You wait some time without doing anything (that's as to avoid as much as you can the inevitable motional reactions you might have and have a more objective decision). Just observe the tiny pieces
.
3.Then yes you start rebuilding!But from which parts you start first? From Unquestionable truths! Things that simply Can't be deniable at any point!(according to human knowledge so far of course). Fundamental Truths. You take the tiny pieces first that you are totally sure that you know exactly where to put them. Fundamental Truths for example in racist problems could be that all people die! There is no discrimination to race at all for that. (just trying to give you an example of what I mean fundamental truths in every matter).

4.After finishing with the pieces that you are sure about. Then you go on as to build the closest answer to every problem(and good luck for that). But knowing definitely that you will never reach the perfect!! Never 100%.its impossible! Exactly as in your field as you said! People can never get it all right! And for me at least that is another Fundamental Truth. So you just aim for the highest "score" you can reach in every problem!And that's why I find Logic as the greatest guide and so important.

Sorry for rambling so much. But you triggered me when I read what I quoted.

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. — T Clark

Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic?

It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? — T Clark

I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course.

I would never guess that you were engineer with your statements. I was counting engineers on my side at that "fight" for Logic. Surprised really. — dimosthenis9

Who better than an engineer to recognize the limits of what rationalization can achieve and it's possible dangers.

That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better! — dimosthenis9

You left out the part where I said "That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous."

Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic? — dimosthenis9

As I said before:

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course. — dimosthenis9

Logic is not the right path for me. As I described previously:

It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it. — T Clark

Formal methods for becoming more self-aware include meditation, therapy, religion - studies that focus inward. Informally, it's just a matter of paying attention to what goes on inside you.

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. If I want to build a bridge and I follow all engineering steps 100% then the bridge won't end up a disaster at all. Same thing with logic. If people can't practice it well, it's not Logic's fault.

For example in racism matter if I start my case that all black people are born genetically inferior than white people then for sure I will end up to a disastrous argument. Is it Logic's fault that it won't produce a right outcome?? Since my first case actually rapes Logic! As I support logic is mind's searching truth engine. If the "data" I put in this engine are totally false of course the outcome would be a failure.

All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. — dimosthenis9

As I noted, it is the essence of engineering that it breaks the world down into smaller pieces then builds a simplified model and uses it to make design decisions. In civil engineering in particular, they then go out into the world and dig holes, build roads, dam up rivers, build levees, build sewers and so on and so on. The simplification is essential and it's what leads to damaging outcomes. Yes, there are definitive rules. Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models.

Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models. — T Clark

But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least?

Same with Logic i don't support that is a solution for everything. Of course is limited since human knowledge is limited too (maybe that's the problem of engineering too?). I mean humans don't have all the answers for everything so of course Logic can't work with total success in everything too. There are issues that truly might not be much helpful. But at fields where human knowledge is enough it can "build" some totally successful "projects" like engineering.

At the end as an engineer and despite your objections about oversimplification don't you think engineering even with its weaknesses is valuable and the only way to actual build things? I mean could it be a better alternative?

But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least? — dimosthenis9

Yes, sometimes, often, engineering projects work out well. The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal. Often that's fine, but sometimes factors not taken into account cause problems. A typical situation - in designing drainage for a redevelopment site, you select pipe sizes to handle the greatest amount of water you estimate will be generated by precipitation within, for example, 25 years. This modelling provides protection against flooding onsite, but changes in the amount of water discharged or the timing of those discharges may cause flooding downstream.

The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal — T Clark

Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable?


I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project.

Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable? — dimosthenis9

Model's are necessarily simplified, so, yes, it's not their fault. It is inherent in the engineering, and I would say logical, process that this type of simplification takes place. Same is true for science. The only way we can get the precision of what is called "hard science" is to strip everything away except the simplest features - electrons, electromagnetic waves, chemical bonds. That's a limitation, but it's where the power of science comes from. As you get closer to human scale, the limitations can lead to unintended consequences.

I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project. — dimosthenis9

This is a really interesting subject for me. As an engineer, I am responsible for following "good engineering practice." Good engineering practice generally includes just those simplified models we have been discussing. So, as I said, the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level.

As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.

Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.

Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons.

problems that people (both in general as society but as individuals also)find extremely difficult to think Logically. — dimosthenis9

emotions are more important than logic

and power is more important than emotions

In what way you find emotions more important than Logic? Of course acts are triggered by emotions and not Logic but isn't Logic a great way to tame emotions? As to filter our acts in a better way?
And how power also is more important than emotions? At the end isn't the desire for power an emotion itself?

Logic a great way to tame emotions? — dimosthenis9

dont tame emotions.

dont tame any part of yourself

go live in a cage at the zoo if u want to be tamed

Yeah don't tame emotions. That's why you see everywhere people who act only by emotions without filter anything bringing such chaos in societies. Sure if my anger pushes me to punch someone what good is Logic as to stop me? Just go and punch him as to let my beloved emotions flow natural.
Maybe zoo suits better for animals without Logic ability. These surely driven only by their emotions and instincts! So thanks for the advice but I will pass it.

bringing such chaos in societies — dimosthenis9

maybe chaos in society is from people trying to tame emotions

stop doing that and we will have more prosperity

the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level. — T Clark

But at the end is something else that can be done in engineering except simplification (despite its faults of course)? According to science so far aren't these models the best (or less bad at least as to put it that way) way as to build things?? Of course they need improvement but I guess engineering at the past was much worse than nowadays. I guess many more disastrous projects occurred at the past. But isn't that natural since human knowledge gets bigger? Maybe in future these oversimplified models might get much better also.

That's what I support with Logic. It's not a magic cure for everything but it's the best (less bad at least) method.Since human knowledge is limited Logic effect is limited too but as knowledge expands Logic expands too.

As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.

Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.

Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons. — T Clark

So same with Logic, seems Engineering also has to deal with a real Chaotic environment and we demand the best possible solution from it. As we demand from Logic the best possible solution in chaotic human societies and chaotic existential problems that a person faces on his own also. Shouldn't we be a little soft both in engineering models and Logic also? Recognize the hardships they have to deal with.

When I started this topic I never imagined I would find so similar things to Logic and Engineering (never thought it in deep level) and the more we debate about it the more similarities I see(in problems they face, the way they deal with problems and the chaotic environment that both need to deal with). For sure you have an interesting job. No boring days at work for you.

How is it ever possible Logic to bring chaos in societies??
I gave you an example of how useful can be to tame your emotions sometimes. As you notice around you most people don't tame their emotions at all and don't use logic either. And yet you see chaos everywhere. If the majority of people start to act Logically and then a bigger chaos occur then we can discuss it again. Till then I stick to my point.

Till then I stick to my point. — dimosthenis9

ok keep taming yourself

make yourself weaker and more passive

and i will be untamed and rule over you

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/

How can you rule over someone who doesn't acknowledge your authority?? Oh my friend I see why you hate Logic so much.

How can you rule over someone who doesn't acknowledge your authority? — dimosthenis9

because i will rule over them with power not authority

power = the law of the universe.

Really interesting. I will read it extensively tomorrow. Maybe at the end psychological factors are the biggest obstacle to Logic. And not intelligence itself.

Oh whatever. Rule over me, whole world,animals, trees also if you want. Good luck with that.