A Working Definition Of Logic

It is the correct measurment of differences between things. Formal logic is about the mastering of certain measurement patterns (or codes).

If you look at a tree and begin to climb it, you use logical processes to decide which parts to climb and how. Idiocy is the lack of logic. Even respect by force is respect by logic, because logic informs about the difference between strong and weak.

Logic… to me… is arriving at a workable solution, and to do otherwise is illogical.

I like yours.

Regardless of what might be liked, this is what it actually is;

[size=150]Logic ≡[/size] the recognition/representation of association between axioms and/or definitions such as to reveal an associated conclusion.

Ok Mr. knowitall smartass, does your “perfect definition” work without having to explain a barrage of other academic concepts?

Didn’t think so.

Well geez… I have to ask (“Mr knowitall dumbass”) which of those concepts do have have to get a college degree to understand? :-k
recognition?
representation?
association?
axiom?
definition?
reveal?
conclusion?

And perhaps you need to make it clear to Science that nothing can be what it is unless it doesn’t require an explanation of “a barrage of other academic concepts”. :unamused:

Yes, all of those.

You might note that both mine and Magsj’s definitions are better than yours, AND they use words which require no academic explanation, AND don’t claim to be the (lol :laughing: ) only definition.

As long as you define “right” as having nothing to do with accurate, you might be “right”.
Otherwise, neither of those definitions are right.

I didn’t invent your fucking language. But I would suggest that you learn it (rather than try to reinvent it yourself).

Something tells me that you didn’t read the title of the thread… Or that you think yours is the only dogma.

Working. Working definition. You can take your “right” and make a bycicle with it for all I care.

Let me put it in your non-academic terms for you;

“If it ain’t right, it don’t work.”

But actually you and Magjs are merely conflating Logic with Rationale.
{or is that too big a word as well}

It is.

I guess that explains his dedication to anarchy. :laughing:

:sunglasses:

You don’t know what is right. You only know what is right for you. It’s that which guides you through all your situations. It is what works for you. There’s nothing wrong with not completely knowing what ‘right’ is universally; your reasoning is not centered on that.

Also, when functioning in ‘what works collectively’, logically ascertained means to an end, as the most efficient process, will most likely always be recommended. When working in the mechanical field of knowledge, logic of all types is highly desirable.

Logic is one of those words that have various senses. Most broadly, I think it’s fair to say that logic is well defined by the process you use to do those logic puzzles in crossword puzzle magazines (yes, i am old - I know they are available online). That’s pretty much deciding which facts, or statements, preclude other statements and which do not. In other words, you’re sorting out the question, “if it’s this, does that mean it’s not that?”.

Put another way, logic is the tool we use to avoid contradiction. Now, before someone chimes in with “contradiction is defined by logic, so that’s a circular definition” - it’s not. That’s because logic is a method which enhances an ability that we already have before we get all logical on the world’s ass. I think we know the difference between a warn nipple and a rock, even as suckling children. Even before we can say we are “logical”. Logic comes into play when things get more complicated than that - when we can talk about warm nipples.

Which is fun at any age.

Speaking of children, they tend to generalize very badly at first - when every animal is “dog”, because “dog” is the first label for an animal that they have learnt. We learn, after a while, to splice up the world a little more accurately. Hopefully. Logic is a method to help us splice it up even better. It’s one thing to recognize a pattern. That’s what we’re wired for. To manipulate those patterns, logic is helpful.

Sucking titties is logical.
[attachment=0]images.jpg[/attachment]

Then how can you tell me what is right?
Or did you mean that your assertion of not knowing right, was merely right for you?

How could you possibly know that unless you know what is universally right? Or is that your claim?

Those are the kind of assertions one gets when people don’t actually understand Logic, yet believe that they do,
"I know that no one can know",
“It is universally true that nothing is universal”,
“It is an absolute certainty that nothing is certain, especially absolutes.”
“The truth is that there is no truth”
“All things are relative, well… except Relativity”…

What is most often recommended, is merely what appears to serve most those who are doing the recommending.
And like others, you are conflating Logic with Rationale.