God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

That's your "logic". Keep trying, and you'll eventually see beyond it.

Well, Aristotle's...and everybody else's.

You are no Aristotle...

Don't have to be. Just have to know logic.

[Lacewing]

Just have to know logic.

And yet, so much of what you claim has nothing to do with logic. I guess you claim to be using it when you're imagining it gives you supreme credibility, and you dismiss it when you're imagining to be supremely above it.

[phyllo]

People don't use Aristotelian logic because it's not good a handling real world situations. Binary, true and false, logic can't handle things like unknowns, uncertainty, contradictory facts .

Instead they use multi-value logic.

Many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logical calculus, there were only two possible values (i.e., true and false) for any proposition. Classical two-valued logic may be extended to n-valued logic for n greater than 2. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz's and Kleene's, which accept the values true, false, and unknown), four-valued, seven-valued, nine-valued, the finite-valued (finitely-many valued) with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (infinitely-many-valued), such as fuzzy logic and probability logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

[Immanuel Can]

People don't use Aristotelian logic because it's not good a handling real world situations.

Actually, it's really good at real-world situations, which is what made it such a big deal in the first place. It's especially good at delivering to us the range of facts that are believable, and those that are not. But most people are not logical, and do not know how to apply it.

And it is true that it does not suffice in all situations...but it does, in most. And it's vastly better than dropping logic and using goofy things like guessing and feelings.

[phyllo]

Bertrand Russell knew how to use logic.

I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples. Nonetheless, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.

A History of Western Philosophy, B. Russell

Abstract

Bertrand Russell is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century due to his significant contributions to logic and philosophy. Russell argued that traditional Aristotelian logic contained certain epistemological and logical limitations and therefore needed to be reconstructed within a more precise symbolic framework. Traditional logic was primarily shaped by Aristotelian syllogistic and term logic, whereas Russell maintained that this system was insufficient particularly in dealing with multiple relations, quantification, and propositional analysis. According to him, although Aristotelian logic was successful in explaining certain forms of inference, it remained limited in providing the degree of precision required by modern science and mathematics. In this context, Russell’s contributions to the development of symbolic logic played an important role in making logical analysis more systematic and analytical. In particular, Russell’s work became highly influential in the development of the modern logical tradition initiated by Gottlob Frege. The aim of this study is to examine Russell’s criticism of traditional logic and to evaluate his role in the development of modern logic. Accordingly, the study analyzes Russell’s criticisms of Aristotelian logic and discusses how these criticisms both revealed the limitations of traditional logic and contributed to the development of modern logical systems. Furthermore, it is argued that the symbolic logic advocated by Russell provides more comprehensive and precise methods of analysis compared to traditional logic. In this respect, the study seeks to demonstrate the significance of Russell’s critique of traditional logic in the transformation of modern philosophical and logical thought.

https://mebadifelsefe.com/index.php/ufd/article/view/52

[Lacewing]

dropping logic and using goofy things like guessing and feelings.

As religion and theists do?

[phyllo]

Did you notice the false dichotomy?

Use Aristotelian logic or use "goofy things like guessing and feelings".

[Immanuel Can]

Did you notice the false dichotomy?

Use Aristotelian logic or use "goofy things like guessing and feelings".

I actually said there were three alternatives, if you note. So if it were a false anything, it would be a false trichotomy. But it's not.

Happy to help.

[MikeNovack]

However IC I will refer you back to Phyllo's post regarding Russell and modern logic. You have repeatedly gone "ape shit" whenever I tried expressing in modern symbolic logic. I do not remember whether Russell included actual examples of verbal arguments where Aristotelian logic had holes but do remember that when I took symbolic logic some were given << give me a break on memory, more than five decades ago >>

[phyllo]

Examples are given in the article which belongs with the abstract I posted.

https://mebadifelsefe.com/index.php/ufd ... view/52/67

[Immanuel Can]

You have repeatedly gone "ape shit" whenever I tried expressing in modern symbolic logic.

Oh, that's how you want to spin it? No, I've just ignored it, because it was a mere attempt to distract from the subject in hand.

[phyllo]

Did you notice the false dichotomy?

Use Aristotelian logic or use "goofy things like guessing and feelings".

I actually said there were three alternatives, if you note. So if it were a false anything, it would be a false trichotomy. But it's not.

Happy to help.

1. Aristotelian logic
2. Guessing and feelings

Out of curiosity ...

What's number 3?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you notice the false dichotomy?

Use Aristotelian logic or use "goofy things like guessing and feelings".

I actually said there were three alternatives, if you note. So if it were a false anything, it would be a false trichotomy. But it's not.

Happy to help.

1. Aristotelian logic
2. Guessing and feelings

Out of curiosity ...

What's number 3?

Alternate 'logics" or reasonableness, such as mathematical logic, probability estimates, empirical demonstrations, preponderance of evidence, and so on. Were those not what you also meant, when you talked about other reasonings needed for "handling real world situations"?

If not, what did you mean?

[phyllo]

I already gave an example of what I meant ... multi-value logic.

Four value logic has the values (typically), true, false, both true and false, neither true nor false. Both true and false means inconsistent. Neither true nor false means unknown.

Jainism uses 7 value logic.

Alternatives to Aristotelian logic exist and they work better.

[Immanuel Can]

Alternatives to Aristotelian logic exist and they work better.

Ummm...no. They work "differently" -- those of them that are actually rational, of course.