Logics handbook

[Rodion Romanovich]

Good stuff, LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix :) And I appreciate the effort you (will) put into it (with the upcoming chapters). Haven't read all of it, but most of it.


My complaint is that it looks too "mathematical" and has too much terminology, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just looks a bit "unfriendly" if you dig what I'm getting at - the terminology and length mainly. I tend to be linguistic so maybe that's why I dislike this "mathematical" expression. But this doesn't make your guide any less logical, heh heh.

If your goal was to have a guide to be used as direction for having discussions or debates (in here, the Backroom, but actually anywhere else might do as well), I think it would've been better to base it on a healthy mix of logic, pragmatism, language, and especially general argumentation - in the big picture, to win debates (and of course, to ascertain truth).

One can get too much caught up in formal logic and details, and could lose the big picture. I'd say, let's go for a more free and quickly effective form of discussion or arguments to quickly shut people up (unless their egos, emotions, and such, take over). And to do that, I think those four qualities mentioned above (including keeping a big picture in mind), but especially pragmatism, come in very handy.



Keep up the good work! :)

I think that there should be more information on logical fallacies.

Red Herrings, Strawmen, etc., etc.

Thanks for the feedback! I will take your requests into account. I will at the end of the presentations of each part of mathematical stuff add a section that discusses fallacies and examples of correct usage and what differs the fallacies from the correct usage.

So are you going to go beyond mere 'truth tables' and into 'truth trees'?

I haven't heard the word truth trees, but I assume you perhaps mean evaluation trees for logical expression?

I will probably add sections on predicate logic, fallacies and possibly also modal logic. Last I will add a list of logical rules for reference, I think.

Remember: many of our backroom regulars are also schooled in the intricancies of formal logic - it comes in quite handy in their jobs as IT people. Such ability to drill down through the ultimate decision logic tables to the black/white, true/false, on/off conclusions of logicians is admirable and of much utility.

That said, I guess my caution is this: if you value the opinions of the other posters in the backroom, if you want to be taken seriously as a contributor to the ongoing discussion(s)... be careful of condescension.

Our fellow posters/readers will forgive much; arrogance, ignorance, unbridled enthusiasm, emotional pathos... but not being "talked down to".

Yes, I would assume people who have read about formal logic already know this stuff. They will probably have use only for the reference section I plan to add at the end.