Re: Torkel Franzén is dead

George Dance wrote:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
Or in the conclusion that it would not be good for these people to know
logic?

Not good to allow formal logic to engender confusions that would not
arise otherwise, is more along the lines of what he actually argued. I
don't find him to be saying that it is BAD to know formal logic, but
rather that for some people it causes more confusion than it is worth
for those people. (And I do not necessarily agree with Franzen on that
point.)

I never said that knowing formal logic protects a person from
'silliness'; only that (1) knowing formal logic does not cause their
'silliness' and (2) can even be used to detect or prevent it.

It sometimes does cause people to make silly formal arguments.

Belief in the power of formal logic as a weapon in the battle
against unreason, as an intellectual panacea, is touching in its way but
alas unfounded;

Are you calling the belief that logic is 'the study of the principles
of good reasoning' (Johnson, /Fundamentals of Reasoning, Wadsworth
2002, 1) a superstition? Why do you think that?

Why would you even ask whether that is what Koskensilta means?
Koskensilta said it is a mistake to think that FORMAL logic is a
PANACEA. That doesn't suggest that it is superstition to think that
logic is the study of principles of good reasoning.

the idea that people in general should know formal logic
is just as bizarre as the idea that people in general should teach
themselves the principles of fluid mechanics.


Then I can only conclude that you believe that (1) some people never
need to use principles of good reasoning,

You just blew right past the PRIMARY DISTINCTION that was in play with
Franzen and that is in play with what Koskensilta just remarked. No one
said that good reasoning is not needed. Rather, it was remarked that
FORMAL logic sometimes does more to confuse certain people about logic
while those people otherwise do a good job of using principles of good
reasoning though not formalized.

You're not even paying attention to the MOST BASIC point in the
discussion: Formal logic and informal principles of correct reasoning.
Franzen even made clear that he IS talking about people who pretty much
do a good job of using principles of correct reasoning, not at all that
Franzen claimed, which he did not, that principles of correct reasoning
are unimportant.

Please rejoin the discussion after you've bothered to find out what the
discussion is about.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... need to use principles of good reasoning, or everyone needs to use ... principles of fluid mechanics. ... it was Koskensilta to whom you referred. ... Call it a "correlation" not a discrimination. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A short comment on intuition
    ... > stepped separation-ridge as it does not violate my intuition of what it is ... >> effects,in other words the principles of large scale evolution must ... But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is ... >> exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • A short comment on intuition
    ... At first the principles of Earth expansion appears counter-intuitive ... All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, ... exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they ... rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... 'silliness'; only that knowing formal logic does not cause their ... Are you calling the belief that logic is 'the study of the principles ... of good reasoning' (Johnson, /Fundamentals of Reasoning, Wadsworth ... themselves the principles of fluid mechanics. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading