Re: Logic in Schools


"George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Acme Diagnostics wrote:
>> "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Torkel Franzen wrote:
>>>> "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> It would be a good thing for people in general to know logic,
>>>>
>>>> Why? As you yourself have demonstrated, an exposure to formal
>>>> logic can cause people to make all sorts of absurd assertions
>>>> that they wouldn't otherwise make.
>>>
>>>Actually, whenever I've demonstrated that you or anyone else was
>>>alleging something absurd, I've had to rely on formal logic myself to
>>>do that. And I've never, to my memory, even alleged (much less
>>>demonstrated) that such absurdities were caused by knowing logic and
>>>wouldn't have been made otherwise - that doesn't even sound like a
>>>demonstrable claim.
>>
>> As usual, George, Torcrates has failed to parse the propositions
>> out of that paragraph. Evidently, he only understands symbolic
>> logic, and believes this skill to be a substitute for thinking,
>> in fact profound thinking justifying the Torcratic method of
>> conversation.
>
>Thanks for the support. And I liked 'Torcrates' and 'Torcratic' (the
>best I'd come up with was "Turkey"). Though I'll continue using his
>real name; that will be more useful for anyone in the future who wishes
>to do a search on him.

Thanks. Good point about the googling. I'm a stickler for
maintaining reply intros, so it's probably picked up there most
times.

>> Perhaps if you converted your paragraph to simple propositions
>> and listed them vertically, as I've seen you do for other
>> self-designated polymath newsgroup philosophers, he could
>> possibly understand what you said.
>
>I could, I suppose; but I've concluded, from four or so years'
>experience, that Torkel Franzen seems impervious to reasoning of any
>kind; so I don't see no point in all that extra work.

The "four years" is surprising. though I'm aware of his
phenomenal google count. I only "met" Torkel about a year ago,
responding cluelessly like a sweet old granny to a post that
I didn't recognize as "torkelling" yet (though that only took one
more post as I got royally slammed for my granniness). In the
meantime I've spent a great deal of time exposing torkelling,
also demonstrating the "impervious to reasoning" ad nauseum
(which is quite easier! <g>).

But more and more, I'm finding out or realizing that the
torkelling is generally well known, especially here, indicating
that I've probably been doing a lot of pointless "extra work" as
you called it. I had thought past demonstrations were sufficient
and sufficiently linkable, and tentatively decided not to waste
future time on it. Thanks for confirming that decision.

Still, when newbies arrive with their legitimate and friendly,
though always ill-formed, questions requiring utmost charity,
they are sometimes caused anguish by torkelling. I am highly
motivated to relieve that anguish by saying *something*. That's
because I've been the newbie in younger years, got the obligatory
hazing, know how bad the resulting anguish can feel, and felt the
relief when just one old-timer took the trouble and risk of
saying some neutralizing thing. I owe people for that.

One recent newbie, obviously in considerable anguish,
independently compiled a post of torkelling (not calling it that)
that was so obvious, genuine, and self-standing that I couldn't
resist pouncing on it. But with more than enough, I'll try to
restrain myself.

I'll continue to support you and other serious posters who are
caused to waste their valuable time due to torkelling as I might
see worthwhile opportunity, unless I get some hint that it's not
helpful. I've seen some theorists get torkelled too but
consider that none of my business, not to mention being
unqualified.

>> But if that didn't work, you could denote "anyone alleging
>> something absurd" as "A", and "I never make mistakes in symbolic
>> logic" as "B" and then perhaps our gargantuan thinker would
>> notice that A <> B. Likewise, if you denoted "mistake in symbolic
>> logic" as "C" and "absurd assertion" as "D" then perhaps the
>> all-knowing soothsayer could notice that C <> D.
>
>I think it might be more entertaining to look for other substitution
>instances of Torkel's argument. The possibilities are endless.
>
>Those who know nothing of arithmetic never make mistakes in addition or
>division, for example: so, "obviously," knowledge of arithmethic is the
>cause of those mistakes; and therefore arithmetic is something else
>that we shouldn't teach children. Again, those who don't know how to
>read or write never make any spelling mistakes: so, again "obviously,"
>knowledge of reading or writing is what causes those mistakes; again,
>we can assure that children make fewer mistakes by not teaching them to
>read or write.

Yeah. I'm sure he knows how idiotic his logic is and
could care less, viewing it as a silly "informal logic" game we
play, as if Aristotle was an "informal" doofus for not including
recursive proofs in his syllogisms. Lucky for us, nearly everyone
else does care about good reasoning. I'm sure that includes most
of the theoreticians in these related groups, some of whom exceed
his credentials. One wonders what imagined debate jury he is
arguing to.

Larry
.