Frank, Glen, Dave, and all,

 

What, on your various accounts is the relationship between “logic”,  “right 
thinking”, “right reasoning”, and “truth”?  As I understand Peirce, a true 
opinion is one that is likely to endure indefinitely, unchallenged by any new 
experiences, “right reasoning and thinking” are methods of inference that lead 
(fallibly] to such true opinions, and logic is the distillation and 
formalization of such methods of inference.  Peirce was the premier logician of 
his time and the origin of much of our modern statistical method and scientific 
logic.  Am I wrong about his views on right thinking and truth?  Or do you guys 
hold different views?   Is this just some sort of semantic food fight that we 
can tidy up with a few quick definitions and move on?  Or are we really arguing 
about something, here?   Am not interested in the fine points of your thought, 
right now.  What is it that you all agree on that I don’t understand?  

 

Dave, it’s great to hear your voice!  Will I see you this Friday at FRIAM?  Did 
you report out on your Short Course?  

 

Nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument

 

Don't be discouraged.  I think what I said is incorrect.  What I should have 
said is that in logic a false premise implies everything so for instance F -> F 
is true.  Which puzzles people.  Although it is used ironically as in "If Trump 
is a genius then I'll go fly a kite".

 

Frank

 

 

 

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Oct 3, 2017 11:11 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Yes, well.  I guess with respect to what you write below, it is time for me to 
retire in disorder from the conversation, as I always seem to when logic is 
under discussion.  I do think that Peirce believed that, in the fullness of 
time, sound reasoning should lead more often than its alternative to 
expectations that are confirmed by experience.    And I also thought I had been 
taught that deductive reasoning can be valid, even when none of its premises is 
true.  But I seem to be putting these two ideas together wrong. 

 

[sigh]  I hate when that happens. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:07 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument

 

>But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the 
>formalization of good thought?  

 

Not necessarily.  For instance:  "If A then B implies A" is logically valid but 
most people would feel that it's stupid thinking.  "Every statement implies a 
true statement" is true if you look at the truth table but this illustrates the 
difference between propositional calculus and natural language.  I suspect you 
mean sound reasoning by "good thought".

 

Is that responsive to your question?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918 <tel:(505)%20670-9918> 

 

On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid logic 
is deductive, so Got Me There!

But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the 
formalization of good thought?  So, then, it behooves one who would claim that 
an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if not 
deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead 
directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should 
provisionally believe him.  I think the argument IS deductive (in this case) 
and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who are 
usually right provisionally as authorities.  (i.e., as people to be believed 
until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. )

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument

Hm.  My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that 
fallacy.  Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, 
authority.  And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own 
reasoning.

I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* 
formalized?  Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to 
deduction?


On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument?
>
> What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to