Logic lesson 1

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: chr0naut

I'll bite, particularly because I detest people who misapply things they learned in their youth and believe that they are participating in a valid dialectic.

To be able to properly utilize that "all" qualifier it is implicit that you have 'all' knowledge; that there are no instances that contradict what you are stating. Since it is most likely that you do not have 'all' knowledge, you cannot EVER use the "all" qualifier.

I think you mean quantifier?

We can possess all knowledge in a specific domain of discourse. All the change in my pockets are pennies.

There you go, proof positive that knowledge (in this case mine) is imperfect.

a reply to: chr0naut

... but you are claiming that the "all" quantifier is "never" true, and that the "none" quantifier is "always" false?

Doesn't that put you in a bit of a pickle?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(OP, what you said is kinda fundamental, sure, but many people ignore basic logic, even if they have studied it ... you're fine, IMO.)

a reply to: vethumanbeing

In regard to unkind people being kind, I was indicating that people who are generally kind are not prevented from doing something spiteful. The same is true in the inverse case.

We are more complex than a simple and static definition may imply.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

... but you are claiming that the "all" quantifier is "never" true, and that the "none" quantifier is "always" false?

Doesn't that put you in a bit of a pickle?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(OP, what you said is kinda fundamental, sure, but many people ignore basic logic, even if they have studied it ... you're fine, IMO.)

I was not stating that the "all" quantifier is never true. That, again, is an absolute which implies that we must have perfect knowledge to be able to truthfully apply it.

As Les Misanthrope stated, the argument would be acceptable in a limited domain.

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, this is what you initially said:

originally posted by: chr0naut

To be able to properly utilize that "all" qualifier it is implicit that you have 'all' knowledge; that there are no instances that contradict what you are stating. Since it is most likely that you do not have 'all' knowledge, you cannot EVER use the "all" qualifier.

... but no big deal, I was actually sort of reiterating what you were saying.

Absolutes result in paradoxes if knowledge is imperfect ... unless they are true, as in the case of LesMis' pennies.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Thetan

chrOnaut: In the instance of the 'orange' carrot: Amarillo carrots are yellow, Lunar White carrots are white, Snow White carrots are white, Atomic Red carrots are red and Cosmic Purple carrots are purple.

There are also many specie of 'crow' (I think used as a metaphorical reference); only two actually the Amerian or the Northwester. Large, all black; tip of tail squared or slightly rounded. Loves granola and shiny objects; a smart bird that some believe to have 'Jay' characteristics.

chrOnaut: There have been many non-stupid Americans.
Even unkind people can be kind.

Thetan did not say that; in fact the opposite giving accolades to American ingenuity. How can unkind people be kind, doing so as a donors to a cause anonymous philanthropy?

I believe that Thetan was using a double negative.

Thetan said: "American citizens are never stupid-none". I see this as; because no 'Americans are never stupid', therefore the statement must be saying that all Americans must be stupid (at some stage).

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, this is what you initially said:

originally posted by: chr0naut

To be able to properly utilize that "all" qualifier it is implicit that you have 'all' knowledge; that there are no instances that contradict what you are stating. Since it is most likely that you do not have 'all' knowledge, you cannot EVER use the "all" qualifier.

... but no big deal, I was actually sort of reiterating what you were saying.

Absolutes result in paradoxes if knowledge is imperfect ... unless they are true, as in the case of LesMis' pennies.

Yes, my initial statement was wrong. I had not considered the specific situation identified by LesMisanthrope.

a reply to: Thetan

If someone doesn't specify, you are entitled to read it as "all." Example-"Muslims are terrorists." This proposition is saying "all Muslims are terrorists."

Is that an official convention of logic?

Wouldn't it be true that since no quantifier is specified, no quantifier can be assumed?

"Muslims are terrorists" could mean either some or all Muslims are terrorists, and would exclude "No Muslims are terrorists".

Being able to use all or none certainly catalyzes the process of logic.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That is indeed an official convention of logic.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: vethumanbeing

In regard to unkind people being kind, I was indicating that people who are generally kind are not prevented from doing something spiteful. The same is true in the inverse case.
We are more complex than a simple and static definition may imply.

We are all capable of being spiteful regarding being unkind; to those that are generally kind and are not spiteful. The same being an inverse truth, those that are kind are not prevented from being spiteful (occasionally).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, this is what you initially said:

originally posted by: chr0naut

To be able to properly utilize that "all" qualifier it is implicit that you have 'all' knowledge; that there are no instances that contradict what you are stating. Since it is most likely that you do not have 'all' knowledge, you cannot EVER use the "all" qualifier.

... but no big deal, I was actually sort of reiterating what you were saying.

Absolutes result in paradoxes if knowledge is imperfect ... unless they are true, as in the case of LesMis' pennies.

Yes, my initial statement was wrong. I had not considered the specific situation identified by LesMisanthrope.

That's my point. You weren't "wrong" or "right" absolutely ... in that case.

If knowledge is complete (as you said) or, rather, if it's a closed set, we can know absolutes.

If knowledge is not complete, absolutes create paradox, which may be true or false, but is usually "neither" aka "uncertainty."

We actually live comfortably with paradoxes (uncertainty) much of the time ... many of us just don't know it or we gloss it over with belief.

I think that might be another aspect of the OP's seemingly simple commentary.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think you mean quantifier?

We can possess all knowledge in a specific domain of discourse. All the change in my pockets are pennies.

Are you certain of that? At which point can we be absolutely certain that we have accumulated all the knowledge in a specific domain?

Does your interpretation of the word "penny" align with the interpretation of every other person's interpretation?

"Penny", besides referring to a coin, can also be used in idiomatic expressions.

OP, "logic" is not the same for everyone. I don't care what your teacher or little school books say. Some people don't "logic" with 3 "quantifiers". Some people just use ..commonsense. I'm just helping you, "deny ignorance". Just so you know, "ignorance" only means, you don't know something. It's not derogatory.

It doesnt always help,but when I see a blue crow flying around it may help. None the less I will try to always keep it in mind, the logical mind of course. Thanks for sharing, is this something you always do?a reply to: Thetan

a reply to: ancientthunder
Yes, it is something I always use. It is extremely applicable to everyday life and it is something that most of ATS desperately needs. Take this example for instance.

"Muslims are barbaric and primitive people." This is an incorrect statement. If you go to Toronto (as I have,) you will find many modern and sophisticated Muslims. This disproves the proposition because the proposition is saying "all," and yet it can be demonstrated that not all are. A more precise wording of what they most likely mean is "most Muslims are barbaric and primitive people." This falls under the "some" category.

If you use the three quantifiers correctly when you're observing, thinking and talking, life gets much more easy. And remember that when "some" is the correct quantifier, you always proceed to ask or find out "which."

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wouldn't it be true that since no quantifier is specified, no quantifier can be assumed?

"Muslims are terrorists" could mean either some or all Muslims are terrorists, and would exclude "No Muslims are terrorists".

Well, you "could", but it's misleading.

If I were to say, "human beings are blue", people would say that's a false statement, even though there has been rare cases of people with blue skin, and if I were to say that the statement is true because of those few rare cases, people would [rightfully] say that I was being misleading.

originally posted by: Thetan
Start thinking and speaking in the all, some or none filter to be more precise with wording and observation.
Hope this helps!

"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds."
-Robert A. Wilson

originally posted by: murphy22
OP, "logic" is not the same for everyone. I don't care what your teacher or little school books say. Some people don't "logic" with 3 "quantifiers". Some people just use ..commonsense. I'm just helping you, "deny ignorance". Just so you know, "ignorance" only means, you don't know something. It's not derogatory.

Logic is a specific form of reasoning. Not all reasoning is logic.

Logic uses true or false, much reasoning uses "maybe better" or other subjective valuations.

Logic is the same for everyone, the difference between people are the "truths" that they believe.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Semicollegiate




Well, you "could", but it's misleading.

Muslims are ______ means either all Muslims are _______ , or at least one but not all Muslims are _______ .
It certainly means that "No Muslims are _____ " is false.

Logic allows the statement "Not all Muslims are _______ ", which would include "No Muslims are _______ " , but exclude "All Muslims are _______ " . Difficult to use this one though.


In math, the solution would be to solve both possibly true cases and use the most applicable one, or to try to prove all versus some.

If I were to say, "human beings are blue", people would say that's a false statement, even though there has been rare cases of people with blue skin, and if I were to say that the statement is true because of those few rare cases, people would [rightfully] say that I was being misleading.

I think that a set of human attributes would include everything that any human has.

"All human beings are blue" would be false. Suggesting that a typical human being is blue would also be false.

The process of logic is to start from induction, so as to get a possible or probable premise, and use deduction to test it.

Induction is where the information, or knowledge, or the solution to the problem is inserted into the process.

Deduction removes the stone to reveal the sculpture.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

"All human beings are blue" would be false. Suggesting that a typical human being is blue would also be false.

Saying "Human beings are blue" is suggesting that the typical human being is (or maybe all are) blue. Either way it's false.

For the same reason, saying, "Muslims are terrorists" is also a false statement.