Davy

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Davy

  1. It seems to me that those logics you mention fall more into the category of specialised tools rather than what we normally consider to be everyday (or scientific) reasoning, and some of them (the so-called "Deviant" logics) are controversial. I'm no expert, but for example, Intuitionist logic denies the law of the excluded middle when applied to some cases in mathematics which involve infinite sets. I really can't conceive of any "non-Aristotelian" logic which would make sense in the real world, if "non-Aristotelian" means to deny any of the "laws of thought". How can logic be used to refute itself? Take quantum physics; because an electron can seem both to be, and not be, in one place, is it then reasonable to reject the law of non-contradiction on the grounds that contradictions exist "in reality"? But the motivation to rewrite the law of non-contradiction is prompted by that very law! In other words, the method of reviewing one's premises in the light of apparent contradiction is a cornerstone of Aristotelian logic.
  2. Stephen, I've been reading another thread "what use is Aristotle's logic?" which led me to Harry Binswanger's article in which he states: It seems to me that Binswanger is suggesting that there is an incompatibility between Objectivism and the modern logic, am I wrong? or have I hit on another schism here? I'm curious as to how modern logic can be "destructive of logical thinking". Anyway, I've read the first chapter of Joseph's "Introduction to Logic" at archive.org and have ordered a copy from Amazon.
  3. Thanks for the feedback guys. I noticed that Peikoff's logic course seems to favour the traditional (pre Frege) logic, whereas modern philosophy students might not meet it at all; I haven't actually studied philosophy in a formal setting, but in most modern logic texts the 'old' logic doesn't seem to get much coverage, if any. @ Merlin, I'm aware of Sommer's Term Logic (David Kelley devoted a chapter to it in the earlier editions of 'The Art of Reasoning') and prefer it to the standard predicate calculus - anyone giving it a try could hardly fail to agree, although it may not be up to mathematical reasoning. Thanks for the links. You're probably aware of the work by Jewish philosopher/Logician Avi Sion (A Vision?). Loads of stuff on his site but I wish he would include a few more concrete examples in his texts which are incredibly dry and abstract. In 'Critique of Modern Logic' he says: This is just plain wrong. The scope of formalization has been extended enormously by modern logic.
  4. As I understand it, Objectivism uses the so-called "traditional" logic of syllogisms rather than the modern mathematical logic introduced by Frege/Russell. From the Objectivist view, are there important philosophical differences between the two logics? It seems to me that modern logic is still "Aristotelian" (in the sense that none of the traditional logic is denied) and is in fact a superset of the old logic in that it's able to analyse a much wider range of arguments (although it's more difficult to learn).
  5. Davy

    wither TAS

    I'd only looked on Amazon UK, I'm wary of buying from the marketplace having been burnt in the past (books not arriving or not in the condition advertised) and also most marketplace sellers only ship to the domestic market. However, I had a look at the copies you referred to and the seller seems reliable (and ships to the UK), so I ordered one - thanks for the tip!
  6. Davy

    wither TAS

    Nice to hear that David Kelley is working on the 4th Ed. of his logic book. I'm a great admirer of his work and have read many of his articles on TAS. I have a copy of "A Life of One's Own" but haven't been able to get "The Evidence of the Senses"; is it still in print? There are a few available on Amazon but they're expensive. Regarding "The Art of Reasoning", I have a copy of the 1st edition which includes a full chapter on the Term Logic developed by Fred Sommers and George Englebretsen. For some reason a lot of this was cut from the 3rd edition (now it only covers simple terms - syllogisms and sorites - not compound and relational terms). Anyone interested in symbolic logic will find Term logic a great alternative to the standard predicate calculus, it's every bit as powerful, but MUCH easier to use. Other than Sommers and Englebretsen, Kelley is the only author I'm aware of who's written on it. See "A revival" in the Wiki entry on Term Logic.
  7. Davy

    Newbie

    Thanks for the links Doc. Fascinating? well, you admitted that you "loved the polyphony of ideas", and the fragility of the connections not withstanding, I found the series held my attention quite well, and any publicity is good publicity, isn't it? As I've said, I'm pretty new to Objectivism, but I get the feeling it appeals to geeks and nerds. After all, I'm one.
  8. Davy

    Newbie

    Thanks for the welcome guys. I've only been able to find one UK site on Objectivism - here. There are some interesting blogs and useful links, but it isn't updated very often. It's worth signing up because they let you know about related events; there was a lecture at the Adam Smith Institute in London given by Tara Smith back in May, but sadly I wasn't able to make it. Recently there was a fascinating documentary series on the BBC about the rise and impact of computers on society: "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace". Ayn Rand got quite a bit of coverage, although she wasn't exactly painted in a positive light so I don't suppose it's done much to bolster the Objectivist cause. Very interesting interviews of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden though.
  9. Davy

    Newbie

    Hi Guys, I'm a relative newcomer to objectivism, where I live (UK) Ayn Rand isn't well known and I discovered her through David Kelley's excellent logic text "The Art of Reasoning". I've read most of the non-fiction literature, but not Atlas Shrugged - that's next on my list. Many years ago, when considering what to study at University, I read a fair bit of philosophy but came to the conclusion that much of it was absurd and merely 'words about words'. Ayn Rand changed that; reading her work had a profound effect on me and I find it difficult to comprehend why it's largely ignored or attacked (although thankfully, it appears that things are beginning to change). Anyway, looking forward to participating here and learning more about Objectivism. By the way, I'm aware of the schisms in the movement, in particular the Kelly/Peikoff split, but haven't yet read enough to have decided which camp I'm in. Am I right in assuming that this forum sides more with Kelley than Peikoff? Like I said, I don't yet have a firm opinion one way or the other, I hope it won't be an issue.