File: nietzsche_logic.jpg (63 KB, 850x400)

63 KB JPG

>>538518559

File: Swede.png (925 KB, 1600x1200)

925 KB PNG

>>538518559
>Logic is not innate.
Claim: "Logic is not innate."

Argument:

1. If a person learns logic, they must already be able to recognize at least some logical relations (such as consistency, contradiction, valid inference, or invalid inference).

2. If this ability is not innate, then it must itself be learned.

3. But learning that ability would require an earlier ability to recognize logical relations in the teaching process.

4. If that earlier ability is also learned, then it requires an even earlier ability.

5. This creates an infinite regress:

Ability 1 requires Ability 2.

Ability 2 requires Ability 3.

Ability 3 requires Ability 4.

And so on forever.

6. An infinite regress of prerequisite logical abilities means learning can never begin.

7. Yet people do learn more advanced forms of logic.

Therefore, at least some logical capacity must exist prior to learning.

Conclusion:

The statement "Logic is not innate" leads to an infinite regress and is therefore self-defeating. Some minimal logical capacity must be innate, otherwise no logical learning could ever get started.

∀x ¬I(x)
Learned(C)
Requires(C')
Requires(C'')
Requires(C''')
...
Infinite Regress

Infinite Regress ¬Possible Learning

Possible Learning

∴ ¬(∀x ¬I(x))

∴ ∃x I(x)

>>538519531
Not interested in your crackpipe philosophizing. Study logic.

>>538519531
>∴ ∃x I(x)
∴ triforce overkill

File: readinglogic.jpg (16 KB, 476x420)

16 KB JPG

>>538519851
Your response does not address the argument.

The structure of a logical rebuttal is:

1. Identify a premise that is false.
2. Show that an inference is invalid.
3. Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You did none of these.

Instead, your reply is:

A = "Not interested."
B = "Study logic."

Neither A nor B has any bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument.

Formally:

P = "The argument is unsound."

To support P, you must show either:

(F) A premise is false,

or

(I) An inference is invalid.

You provided neither F nor I.

Therefore:

¬F ∧ ¬I

and thus no logical rebuttal has been presented.

The argument remains unanswered.

If you believe the argument is wrong, identify the exact step where the error occurs and demonstrate it. Merely asserting that it is wrong is not itself a refutation.

File: TPol-Star-Trek-TNG-Blalock-a.jpg (106 KB, 725x600)

106 KB JPG

>>538519851
Let:

F = A premise is false
I = An inference is invalid
R = A successful refutation exists

Definition:

R (F ∨ I)

A refutation requires either a false premise or an invalid inference.

Your reply provides neither:

¬F ∧ ¬I

Therefore:

¬(F ∨ I)

Given:

R (F ∨ I)

and

¬(F ∨ I)

it follows that:

¬R

No refutation has been given.

QED.

Argument attacked: 0
Premises examined: 0
Inferences examined: 0
Insults offered: 2

Therefore:

Refutation = 0

>>538518705
>known kike lover
>rejects logic
Many such cases

>>538520121
Didn't read. You didn't read my image. As that book says, we have innately a seed of reason, but it's utterly insufficient on its own, and furthermore people have been brainwashed to think that studying logic is a sign of weakness. The attitude that only those of low intelligence need to study logic is so misguided that the only legitimate way to approach it is to say that logic is not innate, and the seed of reason you have innately will have to be addressed with another word, not "logic". People are hopelessly brainwashed to be averse to the study of logic. This is how they dumb people down and enslave them. Because Jews and Freemasons do study logic, that's your rulers. But you, the slaves, don't. Enslaved by your ignorance and pride. Logic is intimately connected to language. We need to study it just like we need to study grammar. There is also brainwashing that you don't need to study grammar, same thing there. In English two negatives make a positive. "I am not unhappy" means "I am happy". If I'm not mistaken in Spanish double negatives like that are used to give emphasis. That's another thing they brainwash people into, that logic is something found in silicon and copper wire, rather than something connected to thought and language and millennia old wisdom for cultivating the intellect.

>>538519531
based logician

Abstract reasoning was evolution throwing in the towel because the environment kept changing too quickly to solve every problem with instinct or behaviorism.

Yes, everyone SHOULD study logic. EVERYONE should study logic. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equally good at it or that those with an aptitude for it won't eventually be surpassed by those who don't if those with an aptitude for it fail to study it and those less gifted study it very long and hard. This is all that needs to be said on the matter.

File: descartes.jpg (227 KB, 1080x675)

227 KB JPG

>>538520802
I don't think that's a rejection of logic. It's just saying that 2+2=4 regardless of who is saying it. It makes no difference if a king is saying it, or a lunatic is shouting it out of the window of an insane asylum. Descartes said something which on the face of it looks a bit similar, but the message of which is rather different, it's saying all people have the basic capacity for reasoning, but nobody is born with knowledge of the rules of reasoning, ie logic.

>>538521348
kys brainlet

File: Tpol4.jpg (65 KB, 850x609)

65 KB JPG

>>538521123
Your latest reply appears to concede the central point of my argument.

My argument was:

"Some logical capacity must exist prior to learning, otherwise logical learning could never begin."

Your reply states:

"We have innately a seed of reason."

That is precisely an admission that some reasoning capacity exists prior to instruction.

The disagreement is therefore no longer about whether there is an innate capacity. The disagreement is about terminology.

Your position appears to be:

1. There exists an innate seed of reason.
2. Logic requires study and cultivation.
3. Therefore the innate seed should not be called "logic."

But that conclusion does not refute my argument.

My argument was never:

"Formal logic textbooks are innate."

Nor was it:

"Humans are born knowing syllogisms, predicate calculus, or logical fallacies."

The argument was only that some minimal logical capacity must be innate.

Thus the dispute has shifted from:

"Is there an innate reasoning capacity?"

to:

"What should we call that innate reasoning capacity?"

That is a semantic question, not a logical refutation.

Furthermore, the claim that people should study logic does not imply that no logical capacity is innate.

By the same reasoning:

People study mathematics.
Therefore no mathematical intuition is innate.

This does not follow.

People study language.
Therefore no linguistic capacity is innate.

This does not follow either.

The need for cultivation does not imply the absence of an innate foundation.

Therefore your reply is compatible with my argument rather than a refutation of it.

>>538521661
stfu brainwashed retard

File: startrek_tpol.jpg (96 KB, 1600x900)

96 KB JPG

>>538522411
Original claim: ¬L

Your new claim: S

If the "seed of reason" can distinguish valid from invalid thought:

S L

Therefore:

S
S L
∴ L

So your position is no longer "there is no innate logical capacity."

Your position is "there is an innate logical capacity, but I don't want to call it logic."

That is a change of terminology, not a refutation.

>>538522411
didn't read, fuck off

File: 5m9cvu.jpg (74 KB, 720x1280)

74 KB JPG

>>538522467
The statement "didn't read, fuck off" is not an argument.

A claim is not refuted by refusing to engage with its premises.

Formally:

Let:

A = "The argument is false."
E = "A specific error in the argument is demonstrated."

A valid refutation requires:

E A

Your response provides:

¬E

because no premise was challenged and no inference was shown invalid.

Therefore:

¬E ¬(successful refutation)

Conclusion:

No logical objection has been presented. Only a rejection of discussion.

>>538522314
>it's saying all people have the basic capacity for reasoning, but nobody is born with knowledge of the rules of reasoning, ie logic.
Or rather it's not saying this, but it's setting the stage for him saying this in his book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method

>>538522441
I just agreed with you. Are you saying that if someone agrees with you, then he is a brainwashed retard? If people who agree with you are brainwashed retards, wouldn't that imply that you, too, are a brainwashed retard?

>>538518559
>heaven
>God
opinion discarded

File: jolene-blalock-t-pol.gif (661 KB, 220x297)

661 KB GIF

>>538522710
The argument is logically valid only if your claim applies to everyone who holds the position, including yourself.

If:

A = "I agree with this position"
B = "I am brainwashed/retarded"

and you assert:

A B

then anyone who agrees, including you, satisfies:

A
A B
∴ B

A rule that applies universally also applies to the person stating the rule.

>>538522847
Essentially, OP is saying that anyone who agrees with his position is a brainwashed retard. Or does he somehow divine that I am a brainwashed retard DESPITE agreeing with his position? Does my agreement with him make me a brainwashed retard, or is my agreement with him simply not enough to keep me from being a brainwashed retard? OP needs to clarify his statement. Unpack it, OP.

Formal logic is merely the attempt to codify common sense. The problem is that 'common sense' is frequently wrong.

>>538522314
kys shitskin

>>538522710
No, you didn't agree with me.
>That doesn't mean that everyone will be equally good at it or that those with an aptitude for it won't eventually be surpassed by those who don't if those with an aptitude for it fail to study it and those less gifted study it very long and hard. This is all that needs to be said on the matter.
is not something I believe. I believe as Descartes, Isaac Watts and everyone else who knows anything at all about logic that all people are equally equipped with a tiny seed of reason, which shouldn't be called "logic" and which is utterly insufficient. Any difference in reasoning ability is due to a difference in knowledge of the rules of reasoning, which is not innate. Logic is not like learning an instrument, or bench pressing. Totally wrong idea. Because of this false idea people think that learning logic is a sign of weakness. They take pride in "not needing it". It's not a matter of being humble, it's a matter of being brainwashed into having a completely false idea of what logic is. In English "not unhappy" means "happy", in Spanish it means "extra unhappy", this is not something you know out of the womb.

>>538523672
no, next you'll tell me logic is something found in silicon, stop reading modern slop, although most likely you don't read at all

File: 4929eec9f3840c607c68c277e(...).jpg (48 KB, 507x689)

48 KB JPG

>>538523868
You are changing the definition of "logic" rather than refuting the argument.

If humans are born with a "seed of reason" that allows them to recognize relations, consistency, contradiction, or inference, then a minimal logical capacity is innate.

Calling it "reason" instead of "logic" is only a terminological distinction. Renaming the foundation does not remove the foundation.

Nobody claims humans are born knowing formal systems, syllogistic rules, or the logic of double negatives in every language. Those are learned.

The argument is simply:

Innate capacity for reasoning ≠ learned rules of formal logic.

The first is innate. The second is acquired.

Therefore "logic is not innate" is false unless "logic" is artificially defined to mean only the advanced formal study of logic.

P.S.
Your logic has no triforce even ∴

>>538524104
fuck off derailment- and flood bot

https://archive.org/details/easylessonsonrea01what

https://archive.org/details/elementarylesson01jevo

https://archive.org/details/artoflogicalthin00atki

>>538523868
>all people are equally equipped
But they're not. Anyone who has played a musical instrument or a sport knows this. Some people will learn more quickly and be better at it than others. Same with logic. But this doesn't mean you shouldn't study logic, even if you display a great talent for it. EVERYONE should study logic, regardless of aptitude for it. People who think they don't need to study logic because they're already naturally good at it are in for a rude awakening when the less gifted who DID study logic start kicking their asses in reasoning and debating. So, in conclusion, I agree with YOUR conclusion: EVERYONE should study logic.

>>538524104
Didn't read by the way. I'm not here to debate. I don't debate ignorant retards. And that's what all of you are. I'm just planting seeds. Maybe one day a few of them will germinate.

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1783422811230295.mp4

>>538524576
>I don't debate ignorant retards.
You don't debate, period. You issues edicts and demand that no one contradict or even question you.

>>538524357
I just said it's not like learning an instrument. Fuck off retard. I'm not here to debate. I don't debate retards. I'm here to school you.

>>538524693
When it comes to this topic in this place I don't debate, yes, because none of you have any knowledge whatsoever. We're not in the same league. I'm here to school you unwashed masses, to plant seeds, that's all. Now beat it punk.

File: 1773467562130455.jpg (56 KB, 622x618)

56 KB JPG

>>538522360
>Studies logic
>Fails to use said logic

>>538524695
>I just said it's not like learning an instrument.
But it is, despite what you claim. But if you don't like that example, then take something very similar (almost identical) to logic: mathematics. Anyone who has ever taken mathematics classes or taught them knows that some students "get it" much more quickly and thoroughly than others. This doesn't mean that the less gifted students shouldn't study mathematics or that the really gifted students don't need to study mathematics. You're getting hung up on a detail that isn't necessary for your claim that everyone SHOULD study logic. Regardless of aptitude, EVERYONE should study logic.

>>538525009
let me put it in terms you will understand:
You got assraped, all you've done is seethe

>>538525009
No, you show up several times a week and recommend old books on logic. That's fine. If you stuck with just doing that, you probably wouldn't get much disagreement. But you always want to do more than that. You enjoy making dubious secondary claims and then throwing tantrums when anyone dares to question you on them. I think you enjoy insulting people and being insulted in return. Do you do this in real life or only online?

>>538525240
And you're brainwashed and ignorant about what logic is, and about what mathematics is too. The reason some are better than others at math in the West, and that it's about "just getting it" and "figuring it out" in the West, is precisely because logic has deliberately been removed from math teaching in the West. Euclid was abolished in the 1950s in the West, but not in the East, precisely because there's logic in it, yet another step in a long process of dumbing down the masses in order to make society more efficient in order to compete with the Soviet Union.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kvw_ZXftcmA

>>>/wsg/6190205
>>>/wsg/6190203

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisis

File: jews vs 4chan.gif (3.89 MB, 1909x720)

3.89 MB GIF

>>538525568
I know that you're a godless dirty-minded piece of shit. I don't respect you or anything you say. Fuck off and stop pestering me.

damn, OP got fully dismantled with Logic.
kek

>>538525998
It's true that our school curricula have been deliberately dumbed down to make us easier to control, but that is a separate issue from whether or not "all people are equally equipped". You or I could study mathematics under the best teachers, spend ten hours a day working on mathematics, and after 30 years we'd probably be very competent mathematicians. But would we be comparable to Euler or Gauss? No, that's extremely unlikely. We'd be very good but nowhere close to being on their level.

>>538526408
Then stop replying to me. Protip: You can't.

File: 1780737014260186.jpg (182 KB, 1080x707)

182 KB JPG

>>538519531
Unfathomably based.

>>538518559
even fishes think logically. you're braindead, op