"Book burning"

[Agathon]

Well pure mathematicians study the properties of formal systems and inferences within those systems and so on. I'd worry about subsuming it under the catch-all term "logic" though. More to the point people used to think that mathematics could be solely reduced to logic, but that belief is no longer held by most people. In any case, when most educated laypeople use the term "logic" close to correctly, they mean roughly what philosophers mean by it.

It seems strange to me that anyone would say that logic matters more in other disciplines than philosophy, since the sole criterion of a good paper is the quality of its arguments, not the quality of empirical research or anything like that. We don't do statistics.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

What Kuci isn't understanding is that logic is a system of reasoning, and reasoning is entirely subjective and culturally specific. Mathematics is simply one system of reasoning and one that is really rooted in western perceptions of quantity. For instance to the traditional Inuit, who didn't have numbers beyond ten, mathematics as we know it would not be "logical" at all.

Philosophy is the study of different systems of reasoning and epistemologies, so really its only involvement is with logic. So I think most would agree that, as a discipline concerned with understanding understanding, you really can't get much more into "logic" than with philosphy.

Kuci pwning himself again

[Elok]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
What Kuci isn't understanding is that logic is a system of reasoning, and reasoning is entirely subjective and culturally specific. Mathematics is simply one system of reasoning and one that is really rooted in western perceptions of quantity. For instance to the traditional Inuit, who didn't have numbers beyond ten, mathematics as we know it would not be "logical" at all.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I believe that's called. The idea that we are cognitively limited by our culture and upbringing. It's generally rejected nowadays. The Inuit have no cause to think about mathematics in their daily lives, but given time they could understand it, bearing in mind that language problems will significantly delay things. Now quit threadjacking, please, all of you. Or start a "fight with Kuci" thread, like this one was made for Agathon.

In the situation Agathon mentioned, the correct response is to rigorously point out the holes in its theory, contradict and refute it. Trying to destroy it will drive it underground, convince those who like the theory that they're persecuted martyrs, and fail to solve the root problem, which is a vast undercurrent of antisemitic rage. Shutting up debate on a problem does not equate with solving it.

Suppressing free speech momentarily is, as the SCOTUS has ruled, sometimes necessary, as when a Klan rally's rhetoric appears to be on the verge of inciting a riot. Where immediate public safety is an issue, the specific instance can be silenced temporarily to stave off disaster, but such a response cannot work in the long term. Especially in the modern age, now that we have so many alternate modes of communication. But even before now, book-burning was only possible in a totalitarian state, such as Nazi Germany (no, I'm not Godwinizing, this is just an example).

In order for such a scheme to "work," you need not only to destroy the books but to ensure that they are not being propagated in spirit, that nobody is reading secretly printed copies or starting an even more ignorant oral tradition. Nowadays, the ideas can also propagate on newsgroups or forums. I should think that such a massive invasion of privacy would be worse than the disease it frequently fails to "cure." But to be fair, I still don't get what exactly Agathon is asking of me; how exactly can I "prove" this except by citing every example I can think of, as I have done? This argument is limited to hypotheticals until such time as we have a free population of people to manipulate for an experiment, assuming we're sick enough to do that.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon
So you're telling me that mathematics, which has lots of different branches including statistics and so on is solely concerned with logic,[/q]

All of the stuff in math is produced in a completely rigorous fashion from a few axioms that are established. This is true of every field. Nothing beats symbolic logic (= math) for rigor.

and that physics, an empirical discipline (that prides itself on being the most rigorous and truthful response to the evidence) really is just a logical discipline.

That's cuz it's math. In derivations they don't have as much rigor as pure math, but it doesn't matter, cuz they agree with experiment.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

The idea that we are cognitively limited by our culture and upbringing. It's generally rejected nowadays.

Ummm... not quite. Unless you mean limited in the sense of cognitive capability, in which case that wasn't what I meant at all.

The Inuit have no cause to think about mathematics in their daily lives, but given time they could understand it

Of course, but that would require cultural conversion. They would need to subvert their own logic to adopt ours. Logic is entirely subjective, while Kuci sees it as objective.

But for the record, I'm against book burning/censorship too... for the same reasons you mentioned in the OP. I was just reacting to Kuci's "I'm the smartest teen in the universe" routine.

[molly bloom]

Whenever anyone suggests book burning (which isn't censorship per se, or at least can only be seen as the extremest form of censorship) then I think of Heine and his prophetic remarks:

‘Where they have burned books, they will end up burning human beings.’ ' Almansor ' .

Hiding, suppressing, destroying or burning anything simply makes it forbidden fruit- as repressive regimes have found through the ages.

It's no surprise that there was a great deal of interest in interracial pornography in South Africa, for instance, in the days of apartheid, and that erotica and pornography featuring clergy flourished in the Renaissance.


As much as I despise anyone who uses the Bible as the justification for passing laws against me or physically attacking me, it's even more enjoyable using texts from their holy book against them- as I showed in a different context in the thread on the over-zealous (un)Christian missionaries in tsunami stricken parts of India.


The best defence against ignorance is knowledge, not destruction.

[Elok]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Of course, but that would require cultural conversion. They would need to subvert their own logic to adopt ours. Logic is entirely subjective, while Kuci sees it as objective.

But for the record, I'm against book burning/censorship too... for the same reasons you mentioned in the OP. I was just reacting to Kuci's "I'm the smartest teen in the universe" routine.

Dude, everyone does that here, there's no reason to assume it's confined to Kuci. Sapir-Whorf isn't just intellectual capacity, it's the idea that our culture is a hard limitation on our understanding. While cultural barriers can be formidable, in practice they can always be overcome, and not just by subverting logic. The Inuit don't believe, so far as I know, that one plus one equals sixty. They just don't place a strong emphasis on math because they never saw value in it. Hence they never think of the subject. However, if they were given practice in understanding the system of numbers it would "make sense" to them. Kind of like organic chemistry is not necessarily "illogical" to me, it just utilizes whole branches of thought that I never bothered to learn. I'll probably have a hard time learning those things if ever I try, but that will be due more to personal inadequacy than to cultural limitations.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well logic deals with truth values, and truth functions, but formal logic has no metaphysical or epistemological account of truth itself (be it correspondence or coherence or whatever).

If you're Wittgenstein, logical truth is merely tautology anyway, so logical truths cannot reveal any new or useful information.

I find it weird that Kuci would think that mathematics and physics, two disciplines that have considerable involvement with empirical claims should be more "logical" than a discipline which focuses on argument to the exclusion of empirical claims.

That is, unless he is misusing the term "logic".

Um...math makes no empirical claims. Math makes claims about highly rigorous axiomatic systems that have nothing to do with any sort of "reality."

At least real math. And since you're referring to math as a "field", implying the current state of affairs/the research people are doing now, that's all you could be referring to.

Yeah. And what Kuci said.

[Ramo]

I find it weird that Kuci would think that mathematics and physics, two disciplines that have considerable involvement with empirical claims should be more "logical" than a discipline which focuses on argument to the exclusion of empirical claims.

Math hasn't had anything to do with empirical claims since the 19th century. Everything and their mother has been formalized since then. Math pwns philosophy in terms of logical rigor.

[Agathon]

Math hasn't had anything to do with empirical claims since the 19th century.

Statistics has, and that's been my claim. So my point stands. Physics is also at root an empirical science.

And your point seems to me to rely on a false dichotomy. It is a big claim to say that math is logical because it is not empirical. It could be neither -- but that's another can of worms.

Everything and their mother has been formalized since then. Math pwns philosophy in terms of logical rigor.

That's just not true (well it might be true if you waste your time with Continental Philosophy, but not if you work in the Analytic tradition), and you are forgetting that there really aren't two separate subjects here - there are just different areas of focus.

And logicism is generally thought to be false, so mathematics does not rely solely on logic in the way that philosophy does.

And philosophy beats math hands down for rigour since mathematicians generally do not worry about the epistemic status of their axioms, or the metaphysical implications of what they are speaking of.

In any case, if you want the most rigour, become a Classicist. Mathematicians are girls compared to them.

[Agathon]

Suppressing free speech momentarily is, as the SCOTUS has ruled, sometimes necessary, as when a Klan rally's rhetoric appears to be on the verge of inciting a riot. Where immediate public safety is an issue, the specific instance can be silenced temporarily to stave off disaster, but such a response cannot work in the long term.

Then you agree that book burning is justifiable in some cases?

If so, then we agree... the only thing left to do is sort out the rules for which cases justify burning and which do not. Only squeamish liberals think that it is never justified.

As for the long term -- it can work. Many books are now lost to us -- mainly through carelessness.

[Ramo]

Statistics has, and that's been my claim. So my point stands.

What about statistics isn't formalized?

Physics is also at root an empirical science.

I never argued that it was logically rigorous. Hell, some of the math physicists use isn't accepted as real math by mathematicians.

And philosophy beats math hands down for rigour since mathematicians generally do not worry about the epistemic status of their axioms, or the metaphysical implications of what they are speaking of.

What epistemic status or metaphysical implications? Give me an example.

It's frustrating arguing with you because you like to throw out obscure philosophical references and big words just for the hell of it. I don't know what "logicism" means exactly, much less what its problems are.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
Only squeamish liberals think that it is never justified.

As for the long term -- it can work. Many books are now lost to us -- mainly through carelessness.

I'm neither squeamish nor a liberal.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Whenever anyone suggests book burning (which isn't censorship per se, or at least can only be seen as the extremest form of censorship) then I think of Heine and his prophetic remarks:

‘Where they have burned books, they will end up burning human beings.’ ' Almansor ' .

That would be in line with Aggies all too frequently espoused goal.

[Agathon]

What epistemic status or metaphysical implications? Give me an example.

Are numbers real or conceptual? If physicalism is true, what are mathematical truths about. Are they about anything? Is mathematics a mere conceptual scheme, or is there something necessary about it.

It's frustrating arguing with you because you like to throw out obscure philosophical references and big words just for the hell of it. I don't know what "logicism" means exactly, much less what its problems are.

You bastard.

That's really unfair considering I went to the trouble to provide the link to the Wikipedia article on logicism.

Logicism is the thesis that mathematics can be reduced to logic (i.e. at root they are the same thing). The attempt is generally regarded to have failed. IIRC (and this is moving far far away from my area of philosophical competence, so take it with a pinch of salt) you need to supplement it with set theory and maybe some other stuff too.

My point about the empirical is that applied math requires the empirical, applied philosophy (ethics) does not (or failing that, I'm dead sure that the former requires it more than the latter).

The dispute is solely over who uses logic more. We use it all the time.