A Tale of Two Defintions: The definition of "Logic"

[BaalChatzaf]

The term Logic is defined in Copi's -Introduction to Logic (12th ed.) as follows:

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Note the difference. One term pertains to the quality or correctness of reasoning. The other to the non-contradictoryness of identification. The term contradiction itself is defined in the context of logic as defined classically (see definition in Copi for example or the traditional Square of Opposition).

Rand's definition is the True Definition of course. All the other definitions are floating abstractions or evil evasions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The term Logic is defined in Copi's -Introduction to Logic (12th ed.) as follows:

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Note the difference. One term pertains to the quality or correctness of reasoning. The other to the non-contradictoryness of identification. The term contradiction itself is defined in the context of logic as defined classically (see definition in Copi for example or the traditional Square of Opposition).

Rand's definition is the True Definition of course. All the other definitions are floating abstractions or evil evasions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And the consequence for Objectivists re logic is...?

It's strange that Rand just went out and came up with her own definition instead of also investigating others.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

And the consequence for Objectivists re logic is...?

It's strange that Rand just went out and came up with her own definition instead of also investigating others.

--Brant

The consequence is The Tyranny of Definition. He who defines the terms, controls the arguments. This is, in a way, the point made by Orwell in -1984-. The main instrument of thought control was not torture or violence. It was the imposition of New Speak.

Definition is (and ought to be) the empirical description of the usage of words and phrases. From what I have seen this is not the O'ist stand. The idea that there are True Definitions, as opposed to definitions that reflect current usage is an example of the Tyranny of Definition.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

the Tyranny of Definition.

Oh, come now. On the other active thread you defined modern Judaism. I accepted it, because you know more about it than I do. Where's the tyranny?

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Frankly I have no problem with either definition since they are both saying the same thing.

On the Copi to Rand side, isn't "distinguish" and "correct and incorrect" identification? And how is "distinguish" and "correct and incorrect" determined if not by using the standard of non-contradiction? (There are other similar questions and observations that could be made, but those are enough for my point.)

On the Rand to Copi side, isn't "art" and "science" made up of principles and methods? And isn't the purpose of all reasoning to make or use some kind of identification at root? (Ditto about more questions and observations.)

This is a perfect example of the intellectual wealth that can be gained by looking at the concepts and not just words of different thinkers, or the bickering that can ensue over useless time-wasting arguments over semantics.

The so-called tyranny you refer to is nothing but a silly competition for lesser minds. You yourself, in your mention of "Tyranny of Definition," do not mention understanding, but instead control of others. That's the actual root of this kind of thinking: sanctioning control freaks.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

The consequence is The Tyranny of Definition. He who defines the terms, controls the arguments. This is, in a way, the point made by Orwell in -1984-. The main instrument of thought control was not torture or violence. It was the imposition of New Speak.

Ba'al's on to it.

Definition is (and ought to be) the empirical description of the usage of words and phrases. From what I have seen this is not the O'ist stand. The idea that there are True Definitions, as opposed to definitions that reflect current usage is an example of the Tyranny of Definition.

Quite right. Of course, tyrannies are not necessarily cruel. All the term need reflect in this case is that there is one true source of authority for the meaning of words. This insistence on Official Meanings, and consequent reliance on what turns out to be an arbitrary intellectual authority, provides Objectivism with its unwittingly Orwellian turn.

Rand's assumption that all man's knowledge rests on "true" (as opposed to "false" definitions) cannot, I think, be disputed.

That such an assumption - and Rand's insistence upon it - can be easily shown to have no rational basis is a problem Objectivists will have to reluctantly come to terms with as time goes on.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand's assumption that all man's knowledge rests on "true" (as opposed to "false" definitions) cannot, I think, be disputed.

Daniel,

Not quite precise. All man's knowledge rests on "true" (as opposed to "false") identification. Identification precedes definitions. Identification is made up of distinguishing similarities and differences, and integration. (See ITOE.) Only then do definitions even enter the picture. So when she makes any kind of statement about definitions, all this is presupposed and must be true/correct for the definition to be true/correct.

I marvel at how you continually get the hierarchy of concept-formation wrong in Objectivism, or at least jumble it all up with strange insinuations.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

I marvel at how you continually get the hierarchy of concept-formation wrong in Objectivism, or at least jumble it all up with strange insinuations.

You too will have to come to terms with the facts one day too, Michael. No hurry.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Frankly I have no problem with either definition since they are both saying the same thing.

They do not. Correct reasoning need have anything to do with the world. There are branches of mathematics which are purely abstract to which logic applies. In purely formal mathematical systems, the only things identified are the rules for manipulating the symbols and of course the symbols themselves. This is not what Rand had in mind when she spoke of Identity and Identification.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The consequence is The Tyranny of Definition. He who defines the terms, controls the arguments. This is, in a way, the point made by Orwell in -1984-. The main instrument of thought control was not torture or violence. It was the imposition of New Speak.

Ba'al's on to it.

Arrrggggh. Smarrrrt as paint I arrrre!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 14, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In purely formal mathematical systems, the only things identified are the rules for manipulating the symbols and of course the symbols themselves. This is not what Rand had in mind when she spoke of Identity and Identification.

Bob,

Where did you ever get that idea??!!!

Rand might have compared those operations to something like playing chess, but to say the law of identity (her way of putting "Identity and Identification") did not operate in putting rules together is to so completely misunderstand her work as to be painful. You can't even make a rule to be followed without the law of identity.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Let's talk about an actual definition, please, so this doesn't float off into space, assuming that everyone agrees that 'space' means something that has inherent identity and we're competent to define it rigorously and accessibly.

Ahem. Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty. True or false?

W.

[tjohnson]

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Instead of arguing about the definition of logic why not ask yourself what use it is? If all the textbooks on 'Logic' disappeared tomorrow what difference would it make? When was the last time an electrical engineer (the guys who keep the lights on) looked at a book of 'logic' to solve a problem, for example?

[BaalChatzaf]

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Instead of arguing about the definition of logic why not ask yourself what use it is? If all the textbooks on 'Logic' disappeared tomorrow what difference would it make? When was the last time an electrical engineer (the guys who keep the lights on) looked at a book of 'logic' to solve a problem, for example?

The use of logic: to reach conclusions from premises. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

The use of logic: to reach conclusions from premises. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't answer other question. What would happen if we didn't have all those useless books on logic? Nothing, the only people who use them just sit around talking about them, that seems to be their main use. Maybe something would happen, they might have to do something productive for a change.

[BaalChatzaf]

The use of logic: to reach conclusions from premises. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't answer other question. What would happen if we didn't have all those useless books on logic? Nothing, the only people who use them just sit around talking about them, that seems to be their main use. Maybe something would happen, they might have to do something productive for a change.

Alan Turing wrote a useless book on logic in solving the entscheidungsproblem (decision problem). In doing so, he invented the computer. Useless? All that abstract (non-applied) mathematics, which is an exercise in logic. Useless?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

The use of logic: to reach conclusions from premises. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't answer other question. What would happen if we didn't have all those useless books on logic? Nothing, the only people who use them just sit around talking about them, that seems to be their main use. Maybe something would happen, they might have to do something productive for a change.

Alan Turing wrote a useless book on logic in solving the entscheidungsproblem (decision problem). In doing so, he invented the computer. Useless? All that abstract (non-applied) mathematics, which is an exercise in logic. Useless?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Let me make it simple for you; math=good, logic=bad.

[BaalChatzaf]

Let me make it simple for you; math=good, logic=bad.

Formal Logic \subset Math. You ought to learn some.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Instead of arguing about the definition of logic why not ask yourself what use it is? If all the textbooks on 'Logic' disappeared tomorrow what difference would it make? When was the last time an electrical engineer (the guys who keep the lights on) looked at a book of 'logic' to solve a problem, for example?

Maybe they're "worthless" because too few read them in the first place, hence the mush-headed, myopic culture we see 'round us.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Logic, Definition of: The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reaoning.

Now the definition given by Rand and the Objectivists:

Logic is the art/science of non-contradictory identification.

Instead of arguing about the definition of logic why not ask yourself what use it is? If all the textbooks on 'Logic' disappeared tomorrow what difference would it make? When was the last time an electrical engineer (the guys who keep the lights on) looked at a book of 'logic' to solve a problem, for example?

Electrical Engineers, the guys who keep the lights lit, study and use the logic diagrams for power systems and computers. Maybe if you studied logic and its applications you might learn something.

Too much of The Count can cause advanced brain rot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 15, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

In another thread Baal, the logician, says "all bachelors are unmarried" as a universal quantified assertion, but is it really? If we replace bachelor with "never married male" then we have "all males who have never married are not married". WOW! Another great example of the usefulness of logic - not enough of the Count causes brain rot . Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what "logicians" call tautological, true in all cases?

Universal quantified assertions are like "all swans are white" which we know are patently "not true", since we can't observe the entire set. This does not mean we can't ASSUME all swans are white, but we must always be aware that this is an assumption. Is this equivalent to "contextual certainty" in Objectivism? This also begs the question that we always use some judgment as to whether a particular bird should be classified as a swan or not in the first place, ie. suppose it had birth defects. So to summarize, universal true assertions are possible in mathematics but not applicable in natural language.

[Dragonfly]

In another thread Baal, the logician, says "all bachelors are unmarried" as a universal quantified assertion, but is it really? If we replace bachelor with "never married male" then we have "all males who have never married are not married". WOW! Another great example of the usefulness of logic - not enough of the Count causes brain rot . Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what "logicians" call tautological, true in all cases?

Yes, it is an example of an analytic statement. Another example is the statement "a thing acts according to its nature", because its "nature" is defined as the way the thing acts, so you can't draw any conclusions about "things" from such a statement. Such tautologies are trivial and therefore uninteresting. There are also less trivial tautologies, like mathematical theorems, where the result may be far from obvious.

[tjohnson]

There are also less trivial tautologies, like mathematical theorems, where the result may be far from obvious.

As I said before, however, it is absolutely imperative (in my own and the Count's opinion) that we separate mathematics from natural language in these considerations. In this regard ALL statements in mathematics must be considered analytic but in natural language NONE are analytic, strictly speaking. In other words, if your statement is about something outside the realm of pure mathematics then it cannot be considered purely analytic.

[Dragonfly]

As I said before, however, it is absolutely imperative (in my own and the Count's opinion) that we separate mathematics from natural language in these considerations. In this regard ALL statements in mathematics must be considered analytic but in natural language NONE are analytic, strictly speaking. In other words, if your statement is about something outside the realm of pure mathematics then it cannot be considered purely analytic.

It can. If you define a bachelor as an unmarried man, then the statement that a bachelor is not married is analytically true; it doesn't depend on the exact meaning of "man", it follows logically from the definition of bachelor and that of unmarried=not married. It would be even true if we'd define married = cooked and man = bat for example. That would be contrary to the normal usage of these terms and therefore be very unpractical as no one would understand what we meant (an uncooked bat is not cooked), but it wouldn't be illogical in itself. The referents of the statement may be concepts in the real world with all their fuzziness, but that doesn't influence the logical relationship between the statement and the definitions. That is the reason that such a statement doesn't tell us anything about reality, even if we assume that it refers to real things. The statement "a chair is a chair" doesn't tell us anything about a chair, only that there probably exists something that is called a chair, but that is only a practical convention, as we usually want to talk about existing things.

[tjohnson]

It can. If you define a bachelor as an unmarried man, then the statement that a bachelor is not married is analytically true; it doesn't depend on the exact meaning of "man", it follows logically from the definition of bachelor and that of unmarried=not married. It would be even true if we'd define married = cooked and man = bat for example. That would be contrary to the normal usage of these terms and therefore be very unpractical as no one would understand what we meant (an uncooked bat is not cooked), but it wouldn't be illogical in itself. The referents of the statement may be concepts in the real world with all their fuzziness, but that doesn't influence the logical relationship between the statement and the definitions. That is the reason that such a statement doesn't tell us anything about reality, even if we assume that it refers to real things. The statement "a chair is a chair" doesn't tell us anything about a chair, only that there probably exists something that is called a chair, but that is only a practical convention, as we usually want to talk about existing things.

This is an excellent reason why I say "logic" is useless. Why would someone go around making statements that don't tell us anything about reality? That sounds like something people do in insane asylums. BTW, Korzybski studied under a well known psychiatrist at one of said asylums and used his experience in developing his theory of sanity. Even the most basic tautology of all, 'dragonfly is dragonfly' is not strictly true since dragonfly is constantly changing at sub-microscopic levels. All this 'analytically true' stuff is nonsense. Either you are speaking about something in the real world (synthetic) or you are not (mathematics) or you are suffering from some sort of nervous system disorder.