tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post193206586539178603..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Is Logic Overrated?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-55291650592036640122008-03-24T20:54:00.000-04:002008-03-24T20:54:00.000-04:00David Hume would be the first to agree that there ...David Hume would be the first to agree that there is more to good reasoning than logic alone. He tells us that more than once. In fact, it's arguably his dominant theme (and it certainly is in his discussion of induction).Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-13168172289688844332008-03-24T15:06:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:06:00.000-04:00The problem of induction presents no problems to y...The problem of induction presents no problems to your logical mind?<BR/><BR/>Ian Hacking, Jonathan Cohen, David Hume, and obviously Sir Karl Popper did not make an impression on you?<BR/><BR/>Here we are again very different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-42796499992206301592008-03-21T04:19:00.000-04:002008-03-21T04:19:00.000-04:00"If one opts to engage in formalism, the hard (phi..."If one opts to engage in formalism, the hard (philosophical) work lies in interpretation, i.e. ensuring that the formalism adequately captures the intuitive ideas we started with."<BR/><BR/>Word.Jack Woodshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924244192470629571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-42078964649320170042008-03-20T20:19:00.000-04:002008-03-20T20:19:00.000-04:00I agree that logical formalism in itself won't gen...I agree that logical formalism in itself won't generally be sufficient to clarify whether an argument is any good. As you point out, there are questions of interpretation, and furthermore the 'correct' or 'best' logic for a given discourse is often as contested as the issue to which one would apply it. On the other hand, I think you perhaps underplay the significance of logic by focusing only on its applicability to philosophical methodology. The more significant dimension of such formalism is that it simply helps to make precise the <EM>logic</EM> (well, duh) of key phenomena (and one might add: the extent and limits of coherent conceptions of those phenomena).Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11764726376012276409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-64804658930543756302008-03-20T18:59:00.000-04:002008-03-20T18:59:00.000-04:00I largely agree with the points you raise in the p...I largely agree with the points you raise in the post. I'd add that it's worth distinguishing, in this context, regimentation from proof. That is, let's distinguish (i) the translation of statements in a natural language into formulas in a calculus from (ii) the running of a formal proof. I think it's important for philosophers to keep in mind and be able to do the former and there's probably very little occasion to do the latter. Keeping in mind the most plausible ways of formalizing our key claims helps force us to be clear as possible. But if an argument can be straightforwardly put as a proof in a formal calculus, it's unlikely that it's philosophy anymore.Pete Mandikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952230864825600992noreply@blogger.com