Why is LOGIC such a useful and/or misused tool......?

Question

Can LOGIC ever be objective in it's nature?

Answer 1

Logic is pure objectivity, and all that by Nature. It can be misused because its nature is opposite to the nature of the users. Even that sounds crazy!0!

How can subjectivity be objective?

Are thoughts matter?
A.- Of course not.

Can thoughts materialize?
A.- Of course. When they do, we call them 'things'.

Are things thoughts?
A.- Of course not. Things are things and thoughts are thoughts.

This is usually when people start asking: WHY oh why didn't I take the blue pill?!0!

Sometimes, does it happen to you, that you're thinking about something, and when you see it, you say: "That's not what I had in mind"? It's about the same question: Obj. Vs. Sub. Many have tried to put these two together, tried and failed!0!

Here's the Key:

The road to excess leads to the palace of wisdom... for we never know what is enough until we know what is more than enough...William Blake.

The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason...Blaise Pascal.


GOOD LUCK!


P.S. BEWARE of LOLgic!0!

Answer 2

Allow me to answer your second question first!

If it were possible to apply infinite variables with true values and then process this using pure unbiased logic I would dare to say that, yes LOGIC Can be objective in it's nature.

But now lets try to understand what is meant by logic.
Here is just one given meaning

1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."

But of course the concepts of Logic has expanded and evolved into other forms.
Before facing these I will answer your first question in part.

Logic is useful as it allows rational problem solving and more detached or less subjective thinking.
It's down fall is that it is still governed by the thinker or thinkers. who are subjective and limited in capacity.
Take the A and Non A concept, this black and white idea of the world can only truly work in a world which is black and white.
As with the discussion of the pile of sand between Plato and Zeno.
A can be A when the concept of a pile of sand fits that pile of sand.
But all though A = a pile of sand, the same pile of sand minus a few gains is no longer the same A, but is still a pile of sand.
The new A is in fact A - x grains of sand!
Therefore a new A is formed each time a gain is removed.

At no time does the new A represent Not A as to a pile of sand, but is at the same time is Not A to the original A of the first complete pile of sand.
We could further sub divided the grains into silicon atoms and then into smaller components, giving us a possibly infinite family of A's and subjective non A's.

Then we must also define at which point the pile is no longer a pile to arrive at our true non pile of sand.

This example shows the weakness in Rand's and Aristotle's logic when applied to approximates and complexity.


So we find ourselves starring a analogical linear classification rather than a simple binary PILEofSAND, NOT PILEofSAND form of logic.

Gray, Fuzzy and linear logic are still found wanting in complex systems.

We need something a little round or even spherical with multiple positions and points.
Ok I'll will stop here because I'm over shooting your original Q and I would need the aid of graphics to continue here.

So to sum up LOGIC is a very useful tool but without the skill and precision of the user the results can not always be trusted.
LOGIC has the potential of being objective in it's nature, but is restricted by the toolbox.

Answer 3

Logic is very useful because it is a tool of Correct and valid inferential thinking. How can you not prove something without the Thomasian-Aristotelian Logic? This tool is simply the source of human reasoning. What is life without Arguments, Premises and Syllogisms? You see. Logical is a misused tool if it is not used correctly and creating informal fallacies without the aid of human reason, otherwise you are considered as a sophist.

Answer 4

The first thing about logic is that it depends upon duality, I.e. Binary, where there is just 'On' and 'Off' (1 & 0).

Some people speculate that ultimate truth is unity without duality, and in that case all logic as we presently know it is irrelevant.

It is useful to us because it defines things in a reasonable and educated way, but it can be bad when used in a destructive way- for example in the nazi concentration camps of WW2, they used IBM barcode tattoos in conjunction with effectively the first ever computers, in order to make the organization of the slaughter more efficient.

It is all dependant upon the mind of the thinker however, as logic can be used to bring great benefit, e.g. something we all know of: the Internet!

Answer 5

Logic+Reasoning=bullsh*t filter
The more objective the better the filter and yes logic is inherently objective by nature.

Answer 6

It is not a "tool," dude! It is the "Cosmic Wheel" William Watson wrote about, only it is in our heads. It is the functioning of a biological organ, like the liver filters your blood.
Logic is what it does, but not efficiently because there are 60 syllogistic means of being incorrect, and only 12 means having the possibility (not the guarantee) of being right.

Answer 7

Please follow the link-below for a taste of what Logic can do for you and your family. Lewis Carroll was more then an author of the children's book "Alice in Wonderland"; but a brilliant Mathematician, with several other riddle and puzzle books to boot. Link =

__________________________

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4763

___________________________


The one that caught my eye is: "Symbolic Logic and the Game of logic"; you can't get this copy at gutenberg.org but you can get it at http://www.amazon.com ; and the used copy almost sell themselves for free. Please check it out today.

Lewis Carroll wrote his book on symbolic-logic so then, it could be taught to a 14-year old who was willing, and anxious to learn. I admit it took me over a year to get to the point I am now, and still struggle with Sorites, but syllogisms, I have a pretty good grasp on, as some as you know.

Carroll also critiques the approaches of Venn's diagrams(circles) among other's, it's too bad Carroll's didn't make the light of day, today, then again, maybe I wouldn't be in the lime-light on answer's as much as I have been, one can never know.

Carroll also defines logic, not as a truth finder; but that if the two premises were true before it, and they are of the right type, then this ...all x are y....is likely to follow....

Example:

All Martians are Blue(Premiss #1)
No Venetians are Green(Premiss#2)

Some Martians do not posess the color green(Conclusion)

As far as we know Martians and Venetians don't exist; but for the sake of argument; the imaginary class 'martians' and the imaginary class 'venetians' with there respective statements of what-color or no-color they do(n't), posess.

Can Logic be objective? Objective to me means to base things as they are presented to you, and not to be manipulated by emotion, yours or that of other's. I believe emotion can inform-reason in instances, but that is neither here nor there.

Sticking to our example below: People can draw the wrong conclusions from the type of premisses before their conclusion; sometimes they over-assert "All" instead of "some" (a leading cause, and indicator of predjudice by the way) "All people at Answers rule with integrity" though we'd like this to be true, there are the exceptions of trolls which then we have to admit we overasserted our conclusion.

Yes, right, the example:

All Martians are Blue(Premiss #1)
No Venetians are Green(Premiss#2)

Some Martians do not posess the color green(Conclusion)
______________________

Basic premisses have one of 3 modifiers which deal with how many parts of the subject-class of the premiss are members of the predicate-class. Mainly ALL, SOME, or NO.

(NO) is the opposite of assertion, and only denies that there is any part of the subject that is part of the predicate.

(SOME) is an assertion in it's true form and deals with two types of numbers:

1) one part of the subject is part of the predicate-class.
2) More then one part of the subject is part of the predicate class, though were not certain, how many.

(ALL) Contains both an assertion and a nullity and should be thought of as two substatements joined as one.

1) All Martians are Blue. (Contains the two sub-statements)

a) Some martians are blue.
b) No martians are not-blue.

For a real life example using 19th and 20th century books in a unique-library; this can be re-created in any room you see fit, and replicated time and again, and in this sense it is of the universal-kind... wish I could claim that victory to myself, sitting aloft Carroll's shoulders, but to do so would be a fall, I dare not tempt-fate at this time:

The benefits of logic:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgQd50h6RvSlNlb.umzpmdjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071215092131AAXl30j&show=7#profile-info-AYRtqpbaaa

__________________________

Answer 8

Logic is just a nother term for common sense.