Logical form and philosophical analysis?
This thread has been inspired by recent threads on TPF.
If philosophical analysis is not concerned with matters of empiricism, such as whether the morning star and the evening star are really just the same thing, then why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? Logical form is the groundwork where analysis should begin, so as to clarify what the point in question really is. Yet, it occurs so little on these forums. Logical form can elucidate where an argument is sound or unsound, and let's not kid ourselves in thinking that analysis is primarily concerned with meaning as well as how it ought to be expressed.
So, why isn't there more concern about the proper form an argument should display as a bona fide argument presented in logical form?
If philosophical analysis is not concerned with matters of empiricism, such as whether the morning star and the evening star are really just the same thing, then why is there so little attention paid to the analysis of logical form? Logical form is the groundwork where analysis should begin, so as to clarify what the point in question really is. Yet, it occurs so little on these forums. Logical form can elucidate where an argument is sound or unsound, and let's not kid ourselves in thinking that analysis is primarily concerned with meaning as well as how it ought to be expressed.
So, why isn't there more concern about the proper form an argument should display as a bona fide argument presented in logical form?
Comments (41)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html
I don't know if you're in agreement with this statement; but, the type of analysis that I see professed by other members, claiming to do analysis, is tantamount to opinion bashing and, sophistry.
It's rare to see solid arguments formed in first order logic or in epistemological terms clearly stated.
Quoting Shawn
Because most of what happens here is posturing rather than philosophy? Despite the pretence of doing philosophy, folk absolutely hate having their ideas exposed to analysis. Setting out the logical structure of a post is met with blank stares or downright hostility. It's considered antisocial, or plain rude, to point out a logical error. Criticism is met with indignation, instead of explanation.
I'll quote you on that. Yet, in the spirit of doing philosophy of all places, on a philosophy forum, I don't think it should be interpreted as what you describe.
All that needs to be stated is that we're on a philosophy forum where despite its appeal , descriptive discourse is allowed, one ought to appeal to logic more often...
When was the last time you saw an honest post in the philosophy of logic sub-category?
I mean, philosophy shouldn't be any harder than people impressed with the thought that it's all about grounding metaphysics or bashing opinions, should it?
And I'm not talking about the short story competition...
What do you mean by "logical form." This is what Wikipedia says:
Quoting Wikipedia
Is that what you mean? Or do you mean using logic symbols like ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?. Wikipedia provides a list of logic symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
Most of the discussions we have here on the forum are not easily expressible in these types of format.
Many if not most arguments here are either straight-forward or fallacious (proving one's hypothesis, etc.)
Be careful what you wish for. If you conjure up @TonesinDeepFreeze be prepared for a serious technical discussion.
I mean the syntax or grammer of a sentence expressed in logical form. And, SEP has a better entry on logical form.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/
How are they straightforward? They seem obscure and vague mostly. Indicating a ernest amount of laziness in how one decided to express themselves.
Again, philosophy is not difficult with the right tools.
This is from the link you provided:
Quoting SEP
I'll say it again - most of the discussions we have are not easily expressible in these kinds of formats, e.g. you didn't express your OP in logical format. Also, you specifically used an example of an empirical question - the identity of the evening and morning stars - but the format you are discussing only relates to deductive reasoning.
So, I suppose I'll try and say it again. If we are concerned about valid inferences and sound reasoning, what's wrong with displaying the logical form of an argument? I mean, you did take the example of syllogisms from the Wikipedia article on logical form as an example? Furthermore, it seems that displaying the logical form of a sentence doesn't only apply to deductive reasoning...
It's one of the reasons, when I feel I'm able, I like fielding the re-occurring questions that pop up. I, too, make these mistakes, and so it's something nice to be able to point out to those who are wanting to not make them.
:up:
Afterwords, or after the fact I realized what you say as true. With notable exceptions within the thought of Spinoza or TLP or within academia. Yet, there are some examples, such as, scholasticism which employed syllogistic logic to a great extent with little to show for also.
Does knowing we had five apples, added ten, and now have fifteen apples really get us very far towards a topography of vision, symbol, quantity, extension, existence, etc.?
Then so much the worse for those arguments.
Quoting kudos
Yes.
Because analysis of propositions without content is empty and empirical content without formalism is blind?
Even the majority of logical fallacies, are not formal logical fallacies related to the structure. They are context dependent (and hence the arguments about whether the context).
I think a sound argument is based on a sound logical form. Aren't you referring to 'validity'?
As far far as I know, a valid argument is one with correct form. The conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true (and hence whose conclusion is also true).
But the difference lies within the truth of the premises themselves with respect to validity.
Yes?
Well, the premises can be false and the argument can still be sound. But, a valid argument requires true premises.
No I'm saying it is the exact opposite. I.E swap "sound" with "valid" in the above sentence.
All postman are Martians
Mark is a Postman
Therefore Mark is a Martian
That is a valid argument
That is not a sound argument
Sorry, I must be professing an empiricist argument with what I meant.
We can have logically sound arguments that are empirically false, yet still be sound according to our truth tables. Does that make sense?
I'm only separating logic from empiricism. Take for example the various syllogism's that one can use in making an argument. We can use them, as did they used them after Aristotle, and could come up with sound arguments. However, their validity is based on empirical observation.
I did Google the distinction, and it seems different than what I say, but does what I said make sense?
"We can have logically sound arguments that are empirically false, yet still be sound according to our truth tables."
Take my example:
All postman are Martians
Mark is a Postman
Therefore Mark is a Martian
That is a valid argument.
That is a sound argument IFF "All postman are Martians" is true AND "Mark is a Postman" is true.
Now you can create a logic table and mark both those true. But I'm not sure many on this forum or outside are interested in that truth table when it goes against empirical observations.
Thus if you were to get a post in the forum about whether Mark is a Martian, the discussion will not focus on the structure of the logic, but rather on how we can know whether all postmen are actually Martians. The actual logic structure is rarely where disagreement occurs.
[quote=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/] Valid deductive arguments are those where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion: the conclusion cannot but be true if the premises are true. Arguments having this property are said to be deductively valid. A valid argument whose premises are also true is said to be sound.[/quote]
it is like I said.
Yup, then I got it backwards.
But, I only say the above the way I said because you can always be wrong about validity in terms of empirical truths whilst soundness remains within the realm of logical form.
Edit: It's an old book.
Are you saying that an argument can have the correct logical form, but the premises can be false, and the conclusion false? Absolutely.
I always thought that validity was a property of epistemological verification (old jargon seemingly).
I saw in old books the use of an argument both being sound and valid given the correct logical form and verification of epistemological validity of the premises and conclusion.
It just caused more confusion in this instance because it was a topic about logic form. Usually you can get away with it based on context of the discussion, without misunderstanding.
Yes, I would like to provide an example:
1. Worms and rats come out of the ground when it rains.
2. It rained.
3. Worms and rats are created by rain.
It might sound funny to you; but, people used to believe in such creationist arguments back in the days. But, the argument is clearly false nowadays, and only due to analyzing the validity of the premises and conclusion.
Yet, logically it seems sound, right?
Edit: Sound in the sense that the premises and conclusions follow...
That argument is a case of wrong premises and a case of wrong logical form. But I think I understand what you are trying to say anyway, and agree so we can move on I think.
How does this tie back into your OP? As I understand your OP (correct me if I misunderstand), you are wondering why more posts on this forum are not about logic form. I think the reason is because the main disagreements are about the premises as per the point you were trying to make with the rat example. There is a lot more to explore with regards to premises, than with regards to logical form.
Not necessarily. It's simply an issue of too few people actually putting in the effort to make their arguments in logical form such as syllogistic logic or even symbolic logic...
Quoting PhilosophyRunner
Well, I can't make a person present sound reasoning and as per our exchange this can manifest in arguments that can be valid but unsound to state it correctly. Yet, I'd we don't advocate for such presentation, then I suspect we're engaging in unsound reasoning, no?
I see you added this so I'll respond to it.
I believe that premises are always up for scrutiny, whereas unsound reasoning creates these long threads that actually need an appeal to authority to get them set in the right way ...
Fair enough, that is probably correct. I would add though, that syllogistic logic is not the only logic and much of science uses inductive logic. In those cases you simply could not state the issue in syllogistic logic.
And for the arguments about the premises, I don't see what help logical form will give. In your example above, if I disagree it is raining, then we will have a discussion about justification to say it is raining, that has nothing to do with the above logical form in your previous post.
Sure, I mean syllogistic logic isn't necessarily ideal; but, at least it (a premise) shouldn't be lumped into the argument as a truth if it does arise.
Logical form usually entails that the person knows what an argument looks like to begin with. So, I don't see the discussion fruitful without appeal to logical form.