The Two Classes

2006-1-1 16:12:00

Larry:

It is important that members here realize that I do not make statements flippantly or that they are not thought out beforehand. ... Concerning this statement: "Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion."

Concerning your statement above, which apparently you still defend, here again is my evaluation.

1. It is not profound.

I never said it was profound. I said it was true. Why do you create a straw man in an obvious attempt to bring me down a notch?

Larry:

2. It does not bring any further light to the subject, but rather diminishes the light that humanity has already discovered in regards to logic.

The subject was supposed to be my book, which I was posting. Logic is an off topic subject which I had no desire to fully enter into at this time and thus am not covering it methodically and, of course, there will be gaps in any discussion of it. For the past seven years we have talked about logic, and used logic, just as we have talked about words and used words. That is fine but that is much different that switching to either logic or words as a topic. This has been unnecessary as most have a reasonable grasp of what both words and logic are.

If I made logic the subject then I would have started out in the beginning with the various definitions and applications of it and the class wouldn't have been so confused.

You have seemed to really want to make logic the topic rather than the use of logic as I have been attempting to incorporate without much resistance for over seven years. I have wanted to get on with the subject, avoid making logic the topic, but use logic (as it is generally understood) and move ahead.

I do not wish to give a course on the process of logic for many courses have already been developed on it and I have no desire to repeat what has already been done. I still have much material that has not been presented before and seek to do this as a prime priority. In the same light, I do not seek to give a course on the origin of words for others have already successfully written about this.

On the other hand, where logic or a core meaning of a word sheds some light on a teaching I will then incorporate it.

If you think I am wrong or illogical it does little good, and sheds little light, to go into how I may be violating the creed of formal logic. The thing to do is to use logic to show me how I am wrong. To see in action how a thing is not logical is many times more powerful than to proclaim I am violating some rule of logic established in a college course.

Larry:

3. It is misleading.

In that last statement I am not saying that you intend to deceive in any way whatsoever - in no way am I accusing you of any deliberate deception - but the statement is deceptive (misleading) due to incompleteness, and a poor choice of words leading to some ambiguity.

A formulation of logic should be as clear, and precise as possible.

As I said, logic is not the topic and I am not attempting to create a formulation of logic. We'd probably have to take three months or more to do this and I do not see this as nearly as important as other material I have to present.

I do not see the statement (Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion) as any more misleading than "the sky is blue." We could argue till doomsday that this is deceptive because it doesn't give the shade of blue, but what good would it do? Instead, take it in that the sky is blue and seek for clarification if needed rather than telling the guy he is wrong for not giving the exact shade.

Even so we have been needlessly arguing over the exact meaning of logic and now "conclusion" is getting in the way. It is much more advantageous to use logic and show conclusions.

Larry:

It should clearly indicate whether it is making a claim about a relative, or an absolute truth. The following claim made by logicians meets those standards.

"If the premises of a valid logical argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true."

The word "If" tells one that the truth of the conclusion is relative to the truth of the premises.

This is another thing we could argue about a while, but it would not move forward the teachings or bring any additional light to them. All it would do is leave over half the class with their head spinning.

Jesus never used formal logic in his arguments, but most see they were very logical and they certainly silenced his opponents who usually had no comeback.

He would sometimes just use a parable to clarify, something I find very useful, but something unlikely to be emphasized in a logic class.

Larry:

However your statement does not tell the reader that the conclusion is relative to the premises. It uses the word "perfect" which is ambiguous and poorly explained. Most people reading this are not going to understand your use of the word "perfect." The fault in misunderstanding however is principally yours, and not that of the reader.

I think the essence of the statement was clear to most people and that your formal training is getting in your way of seeing the general challenge I was presenting or allowing the point of the teaching to manifest. The end product I was getting at was not clear, and was not meant to be, for I wanted the class to bring up possible examples so the idea could be clarified, bringing enhanced understanding beyond me just felling them the principle. Unfortunately only two examples were brought up and we became lost in arguing details that had little to do with my intended point.

Larry:

In short your formulation above is highly inferior to other ways of explaining the same thing. One could argue, if one REALLY wanted to nitpick, that it is incorrect due to incompleteness (does not distinguish what kind of conclusion it is talking about, that is, it doesn't say whether the conclusion is relatively, or absolutely true).

One could argue this but if one did then one entirely missed my point and the teaching I was seeking to offer. Inferior or not, many here like the way I present new principles.

Larry:

And again, I strongly suggest that you either drop it, or come up with something better. Actually you don't need to "reinvent the wheel." Before making rules about logic you should at least try to discover the basics of what has been well known for some time.

I am not attempting to reinvent the wheel. I am not attempting to present a course on logic. I am not attempting to create a better course on logic. I am not attempting to make rules on logic. I am not attempting to discover formal black and white dead rules to kill a living subject revolving around principles.

I was attempting to present a picture of a principle but have received so much resistance and diversion that success in presenting it smoothly is too low to continue. Hopefully the point I was making about the controversial phrase has been absorbed by some.

Parable

The Two Classes

A teacher prepared the same course for two classes. To begin with the two classes progressed as planned. Then to make a point and enhance understanding he decided to throw out a provocative statement. He figured that many would resist this statement as being false but would learn a lot by using examples to lead to the truth the teacher wanted to present. In the end, the teacher believed that when the intended meaning of the statement is understood the class would reach agreement.

The teacher presented the statement to the first class.

As expected, a number of them thought the statement was false.

"Give me a real life example that gives application to the statement and let's examine it," said the teacher.

The students then gave a half dozen examples that seemed to prove the statement of the teacher wrong. But the teacher carefully examined each example, more fully explaining the meaning of his statement as they proceeded. Finally, the students reached a point where they realized that they could not come up with an example that would disprove the statement. This caused them then to look at the statement in a different light and with a fuller understanding of the teacher's thinking. The idea then formed in them that it could be correct, as the teacher originally had said, and new light came to their minds.

Thus was the focus of the class directed toward the true lesson and they moved forward in learning.

The teacher also presented the same controversial statement to the second class.

Students in this class also questioned the truth of the statement, but some went further than this and reasoned within themselves.

"The teacher is obviously wrong on this point. Since he is wrong and confusing the students he obviously has a flaw in his teaching methods that need to be corrected."

"Excuse me," says one student. "Do you realize your teaching approach is fallacious according to the Smith method of teaching? Let me explain the Smith method to you. I think that when this Smith method is properly understood that you will make some needed changes which will allow the class to learn the truth."

"It would be a waste of my time at this point to study the Smith method," said the teacher. "I have a method with proven value and, because of my approach, have received appreciation and thanks from many students who say their knowledge has been greatly enhanced through my classes."

"But your method is just plain wrong according to the Smith method," said the student. "You would be a much better teacher if you used it.

The teacher attempted to get the class back on track as happened with the first class, but the student kept insisting on talking about the Smith method forcing the teacher to either reply to his statements or dismiss them somehow. Because the teacher knew the student, respected him and liked him he spent considerable time responding to him in the hope of leading the second class to the same vision obtained by the first class.

This hope was never realized, as when the allotted time for the class had passed, the true lesson was drowned in the arguments over the Smith method.

Note: This parable needs to be studied for the general principle that lies behind it, not as an exact correspondence of our recent dialog.

Perfect (flawless) logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.  J J Dewey