User talk:Logician/Logic Changes

This is a list, in order, of the segments removed from Logic.

The most logical book ever written is the Bible, yet some people reject or avoid it because they dislike being informed of the truth, and would prefer denying it.

While the Bible certainly isn't illogical, "not illogical" does not mean "most logical". Also, this isn't really the place for a statement like this.

In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and Timothy Williamson claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

If we're not going to talk about these at any length, there's not a real reason to list very specific examples. This section is something I'm gonna head back to and reword anyway though. In addition, there's nothing more than trivalent logics to my knowledge.

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. David Hume's 18th century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like science which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Bad example of an inductive argument because you want to just show a strong, cogent argument for an example. It doesn't make sense to show how this kind of argument can fail without first showing how it can succeed.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.

Not the place for this. That's an ad hominem attack. Also, there were some brilliant atheists who had good reasons (they thought) to believe that there was no God. Simply asserting that their logic is always faulty is an argument from authority and itself a fallacy.

Premise: There is no empirical evidence for something. Conclusion: The object does not exist. This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Europeans, one could say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

This isn't wrong, just not the place for it. This is better placed in an article about the fallacy of negative evidence. Also the bit about the mom loving her son is a word salad that doesn't mean much. And this isn't the place to talk about faith.

Logic is a necessary discipline in philosophy, because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it

No. Logic is the study of reasoning and sound reasoning. Logic is not the study of how we 'interact with the world and with other people in it'

Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic

Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often do not agree on matters of fact.

I'm undecided on your distinction between 'formal' and 'informal' logic. I've removed this anyway because it's confusing and pointless.

Navigation menu