[003]
42
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \
to:
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \\\"logic\\\" as if it were just careful or rigorous reasoning, which may cause confusion because [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic logic]] often refers to formal systems of reasoning/deduction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning — drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
When Spock says “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” — this isn\\\'t a truth of logic. It might be a truth of ethics, or it might \\\"stand to reason\\\" that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but its not a truth of formal logic in the way that \\\"Either something is the case, or something is not the case, but not both\\\", which is a truth of logic. So I can see how the term is used much more loosely.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning — drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
When Spock says “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” — this isn\\\'t a truth of logic. It might be a truth of ethics, or it might \\\"stand to reason\\\" that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but its not a truth of formal logic in the way that \\\"Either something is the case, or something is not the case, but not both\\\", which is a truth of logic. So I can see how the term is used much more loosely.
[002]
42
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \
to:
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \\\"logic\\\" as if it were just careful or rigorous reasoning, which may cause confusion because [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic logic]] often refers to formal systems of reasoning/deduction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning—drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning—drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians in general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
[001]
42
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \
to:
I feel like this page could do with a distinction between logic and reasoning. The page talks about \\\"logic\\\" as if it were just careful or rigorous reasoning, which may cause confusion because [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic logic]] often refers to formal systems of reasoning/deduction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning—drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians are general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
This would help clear up a lot of confusion, for example, here:
\\\"The story assumes that anything which doesn\\\'t fit a particular mathematical model of logic isn\\\'t \\\'logical\\\'.
For instance, assuming that \\\'logic\\\' means \\\'using syllogisms\\\'. Even speculation and testing hypotheses can then be called \\\'illogical\\\', despite being the foundation of modern science. Heck, even logicians don\\\'t use syllogisms all the time.\\\"
Actual logicians are concerned with the study of study of correct reasoning—drawing inferences (almost always deductive inferences, ones that must be true given the premises), distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones, making one\\\'s way from assumptions to their (immediately implied) consequences.
Logicians are general not concerned with inductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning about what is probably true, given certain assumptions or premises.
I understand that in colloquial use the term \\\"logic\\\" basically does refer to something like \\\"informal logic\\\" or \\\"rigorous reasoning\\\", however, I feel that for the purposes of this article, it would make it much more clear and accurate to make the distinction.
