Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formal and Informal Logic
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 13 of 191 (327983)
07-01-2006 11:47 AM


Let me try to provide some perspective here.
An argument using logic is expected to be of the form:
premise 1;
premise 2;
...
conclusion A;
conclusion B;
...
Here each statement is either asserted as a premise, or follows from the preceding statements in accordance with the rules of logical inference. These rules of inference are based on the form of the statements.
When you present a logic argument, then there is a sense in which your argument is protected. Specifically, your argument can only be challenged in one of two ways:
  • one or more of the premises can be challenges;
  • you can be challenged if your argument did not properly follow the rules of inference (that is, if you committed a fallacy).
    It is okay to say "logic implies X" or "X follows from simple logic". That would be an informal argument. However, if somebody disagrees with your informal argument, they might challenge it. And they would normally challenge it by demanding that you show the logic (present the argument in logical form). At that point, you have two choices. You can either withdraw the claim that you were using logic, or you must present the argument in logical form (so that the person who disagrees can either find a fallacy or challenge your premises).
    My recollection of earlier threads, is that you made some informal arguments. But then you insisted on the protection of logic without actually exposing your premises or the details of your argument to challenge.

  •   
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 48 of 191 (329263)
    07-06-2006 9:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by iano
    07-06-2006 7:05 AM


    Say we took God a absolutely good and gave his moral judgement a score of 100%.
    In that case, absolute morality is arbitrary and capricious.
    For the benefit of our societies, we we need to adopt culturally relative moralities, in preference to this arbitrary and capricious morality of God.
    footnote: I think iano has just made an excellent case for atheism.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 7:05 AM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 9:41 AM nwr has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 59 of 191 (329313)
    07-06-2006 11:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 50 by iano
    07-06-2006 9:41 AM


    In that case, absolute morality is arbitrary and capricious.
    According to your less than objective morality, how can you tell?
    I can tell, because I have actually taken time to study the Bible.
    "Arbitrary and capricious" is not itself a moral judgement.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 9:41 AM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by iano, posted 07-06-2006 11:21 AM nwr has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 159 of 191 (331424)
    07-13-2006 9:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 158 by robinrohan
    07-13-2006 8:38 AM


    Re: Logic of morals
    I don't know if logic given by God would have logical grounds or not. But it might.
    I keep seeing people post about "logical grounds". That makes no sense at all.
    In a logical deduction, one starts with certain premises, and deduces a conclusion. The premises are the grounds for the reasoning. But they are not "logical grounds". The logic starts after the premises have been stated. Logic, itself, needs no grounding. Arguments need grounding in evidence, but logic does not.
    All I know is I can find no logical grounds for morality.
    Since "logical grounds" is an oxymoron, that is to be expected.
    But I will add that the MORAL FEELINGS that we have SEEM based on some standard that is solid and objective.
    If there is an objective standard, then how is it that our President is still trying to justify the use of torture, while I find it evil and repugnant?

    Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by robinrohan, posted 07-13-2006 8:38 AM robinrohan has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 160 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 9:43 AM nwr has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 161 of 191 (331430)
    07-13-2006 9:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
    07-13-2006 9:43 AM


    Re: Logic of morals
    "Logical grounds" is not being used in the sense of "logical premises."
    Right. And therefore the adjective "logical" is completely spurious.
    This entire thread is supposed to be discussing the spurious use of "logic" and "logical". Why don't we just stop it.
    If we are creatures made in the image of God who are also fallen from grace because of sin, we would both show a moral sense that feels objective, and be flawed in our individual expression of it.
    LOL. What use is "feels objective", when "feels" is already a reference to the subjective.

    Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 160 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 9:43 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 163 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 10:04 AM nwr has replied
     Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 07-13-2006 10:13 AM nwr has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 167 of 191 (331447)
    07-13-2006 10:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
    07-13-2006 10:04 AM


    Re: Logic of morals
    Deerbreh got it, back some posts, in Message 147 and Message 153.
    I don't recall any disagreement with those posts.
    You are insisting on a formal meaning of the term that ends up being false when you insist on it like that.
    Nonsense. I mostly reason informally myself.
    My point is just that the grounding of an argument is separate and distinct from the logic. We shouldn't be talking about "logical grounding", since logic does not itself ground anything.
    I would argue that this subjective sense of a compelling moral relation to everything in life that we all have does amount to a clue to something objective in our nature that is badly flawed but nevertheless real.
    Maybe it is a clue. But we ought to investigate such clues. This one has been investigated, and found wanting.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 163 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 10:04 AM Faith has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024