• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Logical Critical Thinking

http://www.n-atlantis.com/logic.htm

What a mish-mash of woolly ideas (and mispellings) that is!
Physics and science in general are not logical
Since physics and other sciences are largely based on maths, and maths is a branch of logic* (although some would say logic is a branch of maths ;) ), that statement contradicts itself.


* [Bertrand Russell] co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica



But I enjoyed the mention of Crow Magnon man... 8)
 
rynner2 said:
But I enjoyed the mention of Crow Magnon man... 8)

Crow Magnon?
Weren't they known as the Beaker People?
 
Mythopoeika said:
I was making a feeble joke - 'Crow' and 'Beaker'...

Oh well.
Oh I see... :rofl:


My mind was wandering down a different by-way:

Could Crow-Magnon relate to Odin and his ravens in Norse mythology?
 
While we wait for Ghostisfort to tell us more about logic, etc, I'll post this, which just dropped into my inbox in a World Wide Words email, and which coincidently links to my last post:

Q and A: As the crow flies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. I've come across an interesting suggestion for the origins of
the expression "as the crow flies". It's said it has its roots in
something called "raven flocking", a method medieval sailors used
to find land. They supposedly kept a raven or a crow on board ship
and when the sailors thought they might be near land, they would
let the raven or crow loose and would assume land was in the
direction that the bird flew. Is this true? [Lynne Spear]

A. It's amazing how people can make a simple topic complicated in
the search for a good story.

I've not come across "raven flocking" and can't find a reference to
it anywhere. So far as I know, adult ravens don't flock: they mate
for life and defend a territory. Crows don't flock either, though
the closely similar European rooks do, being gregarious birds that
nest in colonies. (As a bit of British ornithological trivia, an
old adage has it that you can always tell a crow from a rook, even
at a distance: if there's one bird, it's a crow, if more than one,
they're rooks.)

You sent me a link that your husband found to a website of sailing
trivia. It explains the expression in a related way:

The term "As The Crow Flies" came from British coastal
vessels that customarily carried a cage of crows. Crows
detest large expanses of water and head, as straight as a
crow flies, towards the nearest land if released at sea -
very useful if you were unsure of the nearest land when
sailing in foggy waters before the days of radar. The
lookout perch on sailing vessels thus became known as the
crow's nest.

I'd hate to see a cage of crows: the birds would probably peck each
other to death. And the birds must have had supernatural powers, to
be able unerringly to see land through fog. You can tell this is
folk etymology through its linking of the story to the crow's nest,
which has no etymological connection with "as the crow flies". The
crow's nest was given that name because, like the nest of a crow in
a tree, it was perched high on the mast.

The expression can't be from medieval times, because it's recorded
only from the eighteenth century. And all early instances refer to
directions on land with no mention of the sea.

The true explanation lies in a bit of British country lore that's
based on observation of the birds. Anyone who has watched a crow
flying any distance knows it tends to do so in a steady, unwavering
line - not always, but then this is a generalisation of a tendency,
not invariable fact. Since the flight of the crow is unaffected by
obstacles on the ground, its route came to represent the shortest
distance between two points.

This is the earliest example I've so far found:

Now the country that those Indians inhabit is upwards
of 400 miles broad, and above 600 long, each as the crow
flies.
[The Gentleman's and London Magazine, Dec. 1761.]

And this slightly later one makes the link explicit:

The Spaniard, if on foot, always travels as the crow
flies, which the openness and dryness of the country
permits; neither rivers nor the steepest mountains stop
his course, he swims over the one, and scales the other,
and by this means shortens his journey so considerably,
that he can carry an express with greater expedition than
any horseman.
[The Political Magazine, Nov. 1782.]


I also found this, with more about Odin and his ravens:

The raven banner (in Old Norse: Hrafnsmerki; in Old English: Hravenlandeye) was a flag, possibly totemic in nature, flown by various Viking chieftains and other Scandinavian rulers during the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries CE. The flag, as depicted in Norse artwork, was roughly triangular, with a rounded outside edge on which there hung a series of tabs or tassels. It bore a resemblance to ornately carved "weather-vanes" used aboard Viking longships.

Scholars conjecture that the raven flag was a symbol of Odin, who was often depicted accompanied by two ravens named Huginn and Muninn. Its intent may have been to strike fear in one's enemies by invoking the power of Odin. As one scholar notes regarding encounters between the Anglo-Saxons (who had Christianized from their indigenous Germanic paganism) and the invading Scandinavians (who retained their native form of Germanic paganism):

"The Anglo-Saxons probably thought that the banners were imbued with the evil powers of pagan idols, since the Anglo-Saxons were aware of the significance of Óðinn and his ravens in Norse mythology."[

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner
 
Apart from the present discourse reading a bit like the script from an episode of, 'The Big Bang Theory', it's also veering dangerously off topic.

If you want to refute Ghostisfort's assessment of science, that is one thing. Picking on spelling mistakes, possibly generated by an automatic spelling programme, that's quite another.

Ghostisfort's website is actually pretty interesting, even if you don't agree with very much of it, or the conclusions Ghostisfort attempts to draw from it. For one thing, I did not know how much input the GPO and its engineers had in the development of modern computing.

I have not moved this thread to conspiracies since I believe that it raises some interesting points about the developing narrative of Science and Science. It does an excellent job in pointing out that the story of science is neither as clear cut, nor as straightforward, as we like to believe.

Ghostisfort seems to have a similar attitude to science, to Charles Fort, himself. Unfortunately, it also suffers from some of the same weaknesses. Fort was very good at pointing out the hubris of science ad scientists and it's inability to deal with the World in a truly holistic way. Unfortunately, Fort's grasp of scientific principles and scientific concepts was decidedly shaky at times. Fort's grasp of even Newtonian physics was surprisingly weak, as anyone who has read some of his writings on the subject will know. And, he was writing at a time when the new physics of Einstein and Bohr was rapidly replacing the Newtonian World view, even though few really understood the full implications.

Nonetheless, Fort did grasp that smashing a clock and and cataloguing all the little pieces does not necessarily mean that one will come to an understanding of time, or why punctuality is important.

This is by far one of the most interesting Threads on the go at the moment, for a variety of reasons. It's certainly made me think.

Please, play fair.

P_M
 
Ghostisfort said:
That's just as I thought.
What I'm referring to is formal logic and nothing whatsoever to do with computers:

Fine - but what I teach is computer related, but not about computers and their use of logic. So formal logic figures.
 
If anyone's spent any time in the software doings of your average computer, trying to save stuff from destruction, or reinstalling the almost unreinstallable, etc., they'll know that the logic of computers is usually both absolute and based on some hidden variable that only comes to light after a few days, or weeks, of working along in the opposite direction.
 
rynner2 said:
(As a bit of British ornithological trivia, an
old adage has it that you can always tell a crow from a rook, even
at a distance: if there's one bird, it's a crow, if more than one,
they're rooks.)
Ah, so I though too, but see this brief discussion kicked off by a post of mine here.

Basically, I posted the above in the form of an apparent old rustic epigram, but apparently it's not quite as it seems. Have asked other non-urban types since and they seem to agree pretty much.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
That's just as I thought.
What I'm referring to is formal logic and nothing whatsoever to do with computers:

Fine - but what I teach is computer related, but not about computers and their use of logic. So formal logic figures.
Formal logic with all of the usual intellectualisation stripped away is the ability to make an unambiguous statement like this:
Most students do not study logic or critical thinking during their education.
Therefore, they are unlikely to have any knowledge of such subjects after completing their education.

The amazing thing about all of this is that many people seem to think that they already know what they are, but in reality don’t have a clue. The reason for this seems to be that they are taught a pseudo-critical/logic that involves using consensus scientific ideas as the basis for their thinking.
It is also logically impossible to use scientific rules to criticise scientific rules and for this reason academic science dismisses logic and critical thinking in order to preserve academic science.
 
The tactical manoeuvre of killing a thread by introducing a page of garbage is usually because someone does not want a certain post or series of posts discussed. I suspect this one may have something to do with it?:
Posted: 27-05-2011 15:40 Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
Jerry_B wrote:
It's related to computers in a way - but more to do with rules. You can look up generation gap, surely?
That's just as I thought.
What I'm referring to is formal logic and nothing whatsoever to do with computers: An outline can be found at the link below, but it's much more simple than at first perceived. Complications occur as a result of such things as scepticism and the counterintuitive. The latter being an invention in support of the crazy physics introduced in the 1930's, "that no one understands".
Quote:
"Kant stated in the Critique of Pure Reason that Aristotle's theory of logic completely accounted for the core of deductive inference."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
My own thoughts on the subject can be found here:
http://www.n-atlantis.com/logic.htm

The recent rise in fanatical scepticism has done us all a favour, in that it has shown just how unsound the philosophy is. For example: that because something can be attributed to one cause it cannot be attributed to any other - if something can be duplicated by trickery, then all examples are due to trickery. This is where logic is used to show that such sceptical thinking is flawed.

At this link counterintuitive is defined, but all of the examples given can be shown to be the result of the intellectualisation of simple concepts.
I found the Monty Hall problem the most amusing, being a simple choice of one in three that then becomes a fifty/fifty chance of winning a prize.
The idea that the Earth was once thought to be flat is simply untrue, as it has been know to be spherical throughout recorded history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintuitive
 
Ghostisfort said:
The tactical manoeuvre of killing a thread by introducing a page of garbage is usually because someone does not want a certain post or series of posts discussed.
More a case of "When the mouse is away, the cats will play!"

This thread only exists as a vehicle for your strange slant on the way the world wags. Without your unique inputs, there's nothing to discuss that isn't already better covered elsewhere. You never actually concede that some of us might occassionally have a point, or have introduced something new and worthwhile into the discussion. You just side-step the issue, and then revert to chanting your old, old mantras all over again.

The only person killing this thread as a forum for rational discussion is you.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Formal logic with all of the usual intellectualisation stripped away is the ability to make an unambiguous statement like this:
Most students do not study logic or critical thinking during their education.
Therefore, they are unlikely to have any knowledge of such subjects after completing their education.

But at the moment this is merely your opinion, remember. You haven't actually proved that this is the case, and so your argument is somewhat shaky.
 
Politics and the vox populi are rarely logical:
Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Germany's ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants.
Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel had set up an ethics panel to look into nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan.
Germany saw mass anti-nuclear protests in the wake of the disaster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
Germany is a well-known earth quake hotspot, and its shores are frequently hit by North Sea and Baltic tsunamis... Not!

Science and engineering can provide far better risk assessments because they do rely on logic rather than knee-jerk reactions.
 
This is fine, it just means that more nuclear fuel is available to us here in the UK (assuming we also don't fall foul of the same knee-jerk hysteria).
 
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
The tactical manoeuvre of killing a thread by introducing a page of garbage is usually because someone does not want a certain post or series of posts discussed.
More a case of "When the mouse is away, the cats will play!"

This thread only exists as a vehicle for your strange slant on the way the world wags. Without your unique inputs, there's nothing to discuss that isn't already better covered elsewhere. You never actually concede that some of us might occassionally have a point, or have introduced something new and worthwhile into the discussion. You just side-step the issue, and then revert to chanting your old, old mantras all over again.

The only person killing this thread as a forum for rational discussion is you.
I would be the first to admit that my intent in putting this info on the FT Forum was to get some feed-back on the ideas contained within.
To date, this has not happened with only two posts that actually comment on the content. However, I have found some ideas for my website and so it was not a waste of time.

The second point in answer to your post is that its not possible to introduce a new slant on thinking whilst agreeing with the old. I'm not here to buddy-up although I have made some new friends.
If, as you say, 'my mantras are old', then you should have the answers that enable you to make me look foolish. I see no evidence of this...
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Formal logic with all of the usual intellectualisation stripped away is the ability to make an unambiguous statement like this:
Most students do not study logic or critical thinking during their education.
Therefore, they are unlikely to have any knowledge of such subjects after completing their education.

But at the moment this is merely your opinion, remember. You haven't actually proved that this is the case, and so your argument is somewhat shaky.
How can you claim that my argument is shaky when there is no counter argument apart from "your argument is shaky"? In what specific context is it shaky? Shaky on what, where?
Quote from my first post:
In the UK school system, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject which 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level...
...However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_t ... _schooling
I don't know how I can prove that something does not exist? I thought everyone knew that doing so is logically impossible? Further, the fact that someone has recorded the fact on Wiki and no one has disagreed should be enough.
If you go into the Wiki forum you will see what the other posters think about it.
Concerning the "lack of content" above, I think that my posts and website disprove this excuse. The sum of all gathered human knowledge is there to freely criticise and every person has a right to do so.
The purpose of this exercise is that the proof is in the logic itself.
 
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
rynner2 said:
If, as you say, 'my mantras are old', then you should have the answers that enable you to make me look foolish.
I have, and I've posted them here.
I see no evidence of this...
Selective blindness?
This phrase appears in every post that Jerry-B writes and so I'm unlikely to find it in a search? You will need to be more specific and kinder to the blind.
 
Alright, one last time:
rynner2 said:
Physics and science in general are not logical
Since physics and other sciences are largely based on maths, and maths is a branch of logic* (although some would say logic is a branch of maths ;) ), that statement contradicts itself.


[Bertrand Russell] co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
Your statement is wrong, and you've ignored my refutation of it.
 
Ghostisfort said:
How can you claim that my argument is shaky when there is no counter argument apart from "your argument is shaky"? In what specific context is it shaky? Shaky on what, where?

But even that wiki page you quote notes that '[...]Cambridge International Examinations have an A-level in Thinking Skills.[19]

From 2008, Assessment and Qualifications Alliance has also been offering an A-level Critical Thinking specification[...]

OCR exam board have also modified theirs for 2008. Many examinations for university entrance set by universities, on top of A-level examinations, also include a critical thinking component, such as the LNAT, the UKCAT, the BioMedical Admissions Test and the Thinking Skills Assessment.[...]


If there was a lack of it being taught or the skill in using it, these things wouldn't occur. I've also pointed out that I include elements of it in my teaching work. So your case is shaky because it's not proven - like I said, it's just your opinion right now.
 
rynner2 said:
Alright, one last time:
rynner2 said:
Physics and science in general are not logical
Since physics and other sciences are largely based on maths, and maths is a branch of logic* (although some would say logic is a branch of maths ;) ), that statement contradicts itself.
I have stated clearly in the first paragraph of my page on logic that I am referring to formal logic as opposed to mathematical logic.
The text continues with an example of a professor of physics who tells us that such logic is flawed. I then continue and show that formal logic is the basis of all reasoning. The point is, that a high level academic is discouraging the use of logic as a form of reasoning for the sole purpose of bolstering the pseudo-logic of academic science.
"The use of Formal Logic is discouraged by educators and scientists, although we do have: mathematical logic, a branch of mathematics that grew out of symbolic logic, program logic, the use of mathematical logic for computer programs and digital logic, a class of digital circuits: none of which address the human thinking process per se.
This page emphasises the scientists' dislike of logic for reasons outlined on this and other pages on this site. The use of logic encourages independent thought and awkward questions for the science teacher."
http://www.n-atlantis.com/logic.htm
I repeat, that nothing I have written has any connection with mathematical logic.
[Bertrand Russell] co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
Your statement is wrong, and you've ignored my refutation of it.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
How can you claim that my argument is shaky when there is no counter argument apart from "your argument is shaky"? In what specific context is it shaky? Shaky on what, where?

But even that wiki page you quote notes that '[...]Cambridge International Examinations have an A-level in Thinking Skills.[19]

From 2008, Assessment and Qualifications Alliance has also been offering an A-level Critical Thinking specification[...]

OCR exam board have also modified theirs for 2008. Many examinations for university entrance set by universities, on top of A-level examinations, also include a critical thinking component, such as the LNAT, the UKCAT, the BioMedical Admissions Test and the Thinking Skills Assessment.[...]


If there was a lack of it being taught or the skill in using it, these things wouldn't occur. I've also pointed out that I include elements of it in my teaching work. So your case is shaky because it's not proven - like I said, it's just your opinion right now.
You missed a bit:
...However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_t ... _schooling

You can then link here and see what the professor has to say about it.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm
There is very little further information on the Internet about the subject.
 
The mention of atomic reactors has not gone unnoticed and I suspect that this is in reference to my remark that no technology has emerged from Einsteinian physics.
I'm told that the Nazis were well on the way to a bomb even though Jewish science was verboten.
van Flandern and others deny that the GPS is as a result of relativity.
Everyone is awe stricken by the elegant math', the only purpose of which is to provide jobs for mathematicians.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I have stated clearly in the first paragraph of my page on logic that I am referring to formal logic as opposed to mathematical logic.
The two are inextricably linked, as Russell and Whitehead showed.
Mathematical Logic

Mathematical logic really refers to two distinct areas of research: the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Mathematical_logic
Once again, like Humpty Dumpty, you are using a word to mean just what you choose it to mean "neither more nor less". If you cannot express yourself in language everyone else can understand, it's hardly their fault if your reasoning seems incoherent or flawed.
 
The application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics suggests that formal logic was around before the mathematical.

"The use of Formal Logic is discouraged by educators and scientists, although we do have: mathematical logic, a branch of mathematics that grew out of symbolic logic, program logic, the use of mathematical logic for computer programs and digital logic, a class of digital circuits: none of which address the human thinking process per se."

You see, the application of academic science means going in ever decreasing circles. LoL
 
Quoting yourself, via your website, does not advance the discussion. It's just another example of your 'mantra chanting' and circular thinking.

You are making an assertion, not backed up by evidence, when you say
"The use of Formal Logic is discouraged by educators and scientists". The study of Formal Logic (and other forms of logic) is a part of education and science. (You can buy books on it from University bookshops, and elsewhere.) Your claims that this is not so, and the conclusions you draw from these supposed facts are just a fantasy.
 
A study provides strong evidence that an applied logic class significantly helped improve high school students’ critical thinking skills... This study is of the utmost importance because high school students in the United States are not taught about good reasoning in high school, and logic in particular is highly relevant to good reasoning. A better understanding of good reasoning can help us achieve our goals, become more ethical, avoid deception, and think for ourselves. Nonetheless, I don’t think a single news organization has published information about this study.
http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/201 ... d-results/
See also:
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/5 ... nts?page=1
Others say that the teaching of formal logic is too complex:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/archives ... =6&t=36628
The following is a typical impediment to learning:
We're using Introductory Logic, and I have a question about the mood of a syllogisms. We are given 3 statements and asked to identify the 2 premises the conclusion, and identify the mood and figure of the syllogism. For example,
"Some sailors are not poets, because all sailors are mariners, but some poets are not mariners."
We put them in the following order, and identified them form as AOO-2.
All sailors are mariners.
Some poets are not mariners.
Therefore, some sailors are not poets.
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/s ... p?t=264345
Logic is something we are born with, an aid to learning, a defence mechanism, killed-off by our education.
 
Back
Top