Difference between revisions of "Talk:Logic"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Logic and religion: new section)
(confusion of terminology)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
I think there should be a section on logic and how it is used (or not) in a religious context, but I don't know how to start a passage on it--[[User:Falconcomeon|Falconcomeon]] 18:00, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 
I think there should be a section on logic and how it is used (or not) in a religious context, but I don't know how to start a passage on it--[[User:Falconcomeon|Falconcomeon]] 18:00, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==[[Modern logic]]==
 +
 +
I know of only two kinds of logic:
 +
* the propositional calculus (If A then B; but not B; hence not A)
 +
* the syllogism (All men are mortal; Socrates is a men; hence Socrates is mortal)
 +
 +
We need to tighten up our terminology:
 +
*[[formal logic]]
 +
*[[classical logic]]
 +
*[[symbolic logic]]
 +
*[[propositional calculus]]
 +
 +
*[[syllogism]]
 +
 +
What does everything redirect to? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:24, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 18:24, December 8, 2008

"Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord." --Ed Poor 16:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Logic and religion

I think there should be a section on logic and how it is used (or not) in a religious context, but I don't know how to start a passage on it--Falconcomeon 18:00, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Modern logic

I know of only two kinds of logic:

  • the propositional calculus (If A then B; but not B; hence not A)
  • the syllogism (All men are mortal; Socrates is a men; hence Socrates is mortal)

We need to tighten up our terminology:

What does everything redirect to? --Ed Poor Talk 13:24, 8 December 2008 (EST)