Some thinkers hold that the laws of logic have existed eternally and were discovered by humans. Other thinkers hold that humans invented the laws of logic to make better sense of the world.
Dear Colleagues, Good Day,
"History of logic
The history of logic deals with the study of the development of the science of valid inference (logic). Formal logics developed in ancient times in China, India, and Greece. Greek methods, particularly Aristotelian logic (or term logic) as found in the Organon, found wide application and acceptance in Western science and mathematics for millennia.[1] The Stoics, especially Chrysippus, began the development of predicate logic.
Christian and Islamic philosophers such as Boethius (died 524) and William of Ockham (died 1347) further developed Aristotle's logic in the Middle Ages, reaching a high point in the mid-fourteenth century. The period between the fourteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century saw largely decline and neglect, and at least one historian of logic regards this time as barren.[2] Empirical methods ruled thea day, as evidenced by Sir Francis Bacon's Novum Organon of 1620.
Logic revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period when the subject developed into a rigorous and formal discipline which took as its exemplar the exact method of proof used in mathematics, a hearkening back to the Greek tradition.[3]The development of the modern "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic during this period by the likes of Boole, Frege, Russell, and Peanois the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history.[4]
Progress in mathematical logic in the first few decades of the twentieth century, particularly arising from the work of Gödel and Tarski, had a significant impact on analytic philosophy and philosophical logic, particularly from the 1950s onwards, in subjects such as modal logic, temporal logic, deontic logic, and relevance logic.",...
Please, see the attached website link for more details,...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
Philosophers like Aristotle invented logic so they could abstract things .
I guess , it exsist in babies, again moral based on personal logic ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA
So , from what I see , they way they (kids see ) it is in us , we loose it and have to look at fancy stuff for sake of following and being a part of a crowd or to have a sense of belonging .
HI,
I would say that logic is discovered, and language is a way to express logic, but not a condition for its existence.
Best regards,
Vilemar Magalhães
It's very deep and wonderful question .Human neither discover logic nor invent it. Logic may be exist with human mind .
Dear Kirk and dear colleagues,
Indeed logic is a formal and powerful method of reasoning, thinking and making valid arguments to verify truth or falsehood. Higher order thinking, reasoning and arguments are peculiar to humans and as such the method of doing these things was started, amended and perfected by humans, to understand nature properly as nature behaves in a logically ordered manner and solve problems, as scientific methods are.
Logic is a fundamental tool of establishing a stable and firm mathematical, philosophical and scientific structures in general. We create our own mathematics to understand the mathematical universe as we create our own logic to communicate with the logical universe.
Our imagination might track an unknown idea or concept from afar, from outside of the established structures of knowledge but those new and alien ideas will be included in the realm of knowledge only when verified by logic.
Regards,
@Dejenie A. Lakew:we create our own logic to communicate with the logical universe.
Your observation is in keeping with I. Kant's view of general logic and what he called the synthetic a priori forms of the intuition:--in his Critique of Pure Reason:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf
p. 114, Bxxiv: ... logic deals only with the form of thinking in general.
p. 194, B 76: ...we distinguish the science of the rules of sensibility in general, i.e., aesthetic, from the science of the rules of understanding in general, i.e., logic.
p. 194, B 77: A general but pure logic therefore has to do with strictly a priori principles/ and is a canon of the understanding and reason, but only in regard to what is formal in their use, be the content what it may (empirical or transcendental).
p. 195,B 78: As general logic it abstracts from all contents of the cognition of the understanding and of the difference of its objects, and [general logic] has to do with nothing but the mere form of thinking.
"[Logic is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts." — Alfred Tarski (1901-1983). From his "Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences," Dover, page xi.
"To discover truths is the task of all sciences; it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth. ... I assign to logic the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought." — Gottlob Frege (1848-1925). From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry" in Mind Vol. 65.
(Taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php)
From the above quotes, I think that the logic is the thing that humans didn't invent but have discovered and is discovering.
Thank you Prof Peters , I agree it is "not intuitive but discursive "
When discussing on properties of some object, material or abstract object, it is important to define the object, what is the content of the concept, associated with that object. That helps preventing comparing apples and oranges, or a discussion between deaf people.
In this case I consider Logic the science of laws and forms of correct thinking. Its object is the abstract thinking, that which includes concepts, judgments and reasoning (it doesn't include perception, sensation, etc).
From that point of view, Logic was both, discovered and invented. Discovered, because the millennial social and practical thinking shows to people how actual (true) relations, modeled in language forms (and thinking), were organized by laws (and forms), which were the modeling or representation of reality. Those laws, Included in human thinking, were represented by signs, in the first place language. The representation of logical laws by means of signs, was a great invention of humans, among them, as we know, Aristotle played a very central rol.
It seems to me that Logic is the invention of man.
The way in which the phenomena of nature manifest themselves (chaos and cosmos, matter and energy), are not how we feel and perceive them. With intelligence, conscience and capacity for organization; we devise and order our thoughts.
Likewise, we delve into the same thoughts (reflection and retroflection) to have greater knowledge, understanding and interpretation of our natural, physical, psychic and social world.
This is how we are ordering our world, and in this way, we express it to our peers through communication and a particular language.
Logic is a deterministic knowledge tool. When there is a method of objective study of anything.
I totally agree with Hazim Hashim Tahir and C. Lewis Kausel. Regards.
Because many cosmologists, philosophers, logicians, theologists, physicists, information theorists, etc. have tried to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing (with everything else else, bouncing universes, possible multiverses, conformal cyclic cosmology scenarios, etc. being predicated on an ultimate beginning), this question turns out to be probably a deeper question than would appear at first blush (the question has floated about in different guises for some time, with ‘logic’ being sometimes replaced by ‘the laws of mathematics’ etc.)
For instance, the question of ultimate reality/why there is something rather than nothing / nagged at cosmologist Alex Vilenkin for years, and he finally came up with an interesting answer, that sheds unexpected light on this question:
If a first appearance of something real into the realm of hitherto pure nothingness ever happened, he reasoned, then a mechanism must be found whereby reality can be born from pure nothingness, rather than from some prior something. To cut a long story short, the only mechanism that worked turned out to be pure nothingness somehow managing to tunnel into (a form of) reality - and then the emerging reality would take it from there.
This scenario, whereby there is nothing at all before some reality or universe begins, is workable ... on one condition. Tunneling can occur if, and only if, mathematical laws already exist. The condition is that mathematical laws must pre-exist within pure nothingness.
As Vilenkin puts it:
"The tunneling process is governed by the same fundamental laws that describe the subsequent evolution of the universe. It follows that the laws should be 'there' even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?
This takes us far into the unknown, all the way to the abyss of the great mystery. It is hard to imagine how we can ever get past this point. But as before, that may just reflect the limits of our imagination."
Information theorist Vlatko Vedral somewhat unwittingly reached the same conclusion: his idea is that information continuously bootstraps itself into existence by creating both itself and the laws of physics (which are themselves nothing but information. For a longer exposé of his ideas, see ‘Decoding Reality’ by Vlatko Vedral). But to bootstrap themselves, the laws of physics need the prior validity of mathematics – the core reality of, say, 1+1=2 (aka logic) preexisting.
The philosopher Philip Goff reaches much the same conclusion (cf. his book ‘Consciousness and Fundamental Reality’)…
The bottom line is, if mathematics (aka logic) such as 1+1=2 has an independent, disembodied reality, then the material universe must eventually pop into existence. In that way, a form of mindstuff (represented by the independent existence of the disembodied laws of mathematics & logic) is the ultimate reality. Have we rediscovered God, although a very different God from the one organized religions are trying to sell us?
Hello,
I personally like to side with those who believe that logic was invented by humans for meeting certain challenges in the outside world. Logic has revived from the time immemorial to the present by important thinkers at different times . This shows that man invented and used the laws of logic for discovering the truth of things in the universe.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Sorry Reza, I don't follow your argument. If 'man invented' the laws of logic to 'discover the truth of things in the universe', then does it not mean that 'the truth of things in the universe' embeds the laws of logic to begin with, and thus that such laws were not invented by humans, but discovered?
If you have to first learn, say, English in order to be able to read a book, does not it mean that English is already embedded in the book you are attempting to read? You are not inventing English to be able to read the book ....
Nothing is negation of all, Chris, and is equal to it in informational sense. What is the sense of nothing, if there is no something?
Existence is inevitable. Parmenides first wrote about this.
Dear Colleagues, Good Day,
"Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding"
------ . Ambrose Bierce
discover or invent logic, it's exist as all different things, by different time we well notice it in future
This question has puzzled scientists for centuries in answering it, and you want in this simple space of the RG platform to answer it. Logic exists in all sciences, mathematics is a model of science, where it came in a joint effort of the Babylonians and the ancient Egyptians. Then the Greeks and Indians contributed to the addition of new areas, all these contributions helped to discover mathematics, but then began inventions for various aspects of mathematics, So did the rest of science.
Dear Colleagues,
Humans did not discover or invent logic.
It is created by creator and we are just using it.
Logic is always there even before human exists.
This creation itself logically created.
Dear Colleagues, Good Day,
Please, watch the very interesting Youtube clip about "What is Logic? (Philosophical Definition)", by pressing the following website link,...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPfw422Wcso
Logic is nature how it can be invented it is only discovered
Logic is a phenomenon that occurs behind each and every thing
Can we say star invented, no it is discovered everyone knows the difference between invention and discovery
The laws of logic are hypothesis that philosophers or thinkers have created in order to portrays how the human mind works. Particularly, such mind capable of either imaging extraordinary things (engineering solution) to solve problems in all fields, parallel worlds as artists (writers, film makers), or explaining how Mother Nature works, v.g. great scientistics.
making empirical observations regarding what we know in the scope of discover further is highly limited by 1. the means of perceiving our external world and 2. by inherent limitations of the structure used in processing those data sets. So, my point of view the so called 'logic' is merely an subset of what we are that depends on where we live. (p.s. most of the other answers also states the deep relation among external and internal nature.)
From the standpoint of what logic means we can take the definition of classical logic as "a logic consists of a formal or informal language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics" [1]. This has as a prerequisite the use of a language that has also evolved to its present interpretation (the deductive system itself has also evolved to now include mathematical logic and other logical systems). One has to be careful not displace the field from its history. The language and connotations on which we apply logic has also evolved and it is highly dependent of the times. In this discussion, we must also separate logic from common sense rules (from which logic can be assumed to be abstracted) which may be derived from logical premises but do not need logic to be utilized (take for example: I burn myself and I do not put my hand a second time on the fire. This can be deduced from premises or it can simply be an instinct based on my recollection of the pain it caused).
In terms of whether we have discovered or invented logic , we must also define the context on which we apply this evaluation. If we define discovery as making it known( through observation or other means), its meaning can also be included in invention.
[1]Shapiro, Stewart, "Classical Logic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .
Or math, or physics, for that matter. Same thing, right? Logic is a way of codifying what seems to be "the way things are."
I'd have to add, logic i not just something that occurs in the mind. It is also a model to explain how things occur in the physical world.
Dear Colleagues, Good Day,
" History of logic
Origins Of Logic In The West
Precursors of ancient logic
There was a medieval tradition according to which the Greek philosopher Parmenides (5th century bce) invented logic while living on a rock in Egypt. The story is pure legend, but it does reflect the fact that Parmenides was the first philosopher to use an extended argument for his views rather than merely proposing a vision of reality. But using arguments is not the same as studying them, and Parmenides never systematically formulated or studied principles of argumentation in their own right. Indeed, there is no evidence that he was even aware of the implicit rules of inference used in presenting his doctrine.
Perhaps Parmenides’ use of argument was inspired by the practice of early Greek mathematics among the Pythagoreans. Thus, it is significant that Parmenides is reported to have had a Pythagorean teacher. But the history of Pythagoreanism in this early period is shrouded in mystery, and it is hard to separate fact from legend.
If Parmenides was not aware of general rules underlying his arguments, the same perhaps is not true for his disciple Zeno of Elea (5th century bce). Zeno was the author of many arguments, known collectively as “Zeno’s Paradoxes,” purporting to infer impossible consequences from a non-Parmenidean view of things and so to refute such a view and indirectly to establish Parmenides’ monist position. The logical strategy of establishing a claim by showing that its opposite leads to absurd consequences is known as reductio ad absurdum. The fact that Zeno’s arguments were all of this form suggests that he recognized and reflected on the general pattern.",...
Please, see the source for the rest of the article,...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-logic
Albert,
I agree with you that also math, physics and other. Though I would respectfully differ on the second point. If we take the following definition: "model is an idealization of the real-world phenomenon and never a completely accurate representation" [2], it is a human interpretation of reality. While the behavior of reality may be described faithfully by the model, it does not necessarily follow that nature will follow what we think it is doing.
[2] A First Course in Mathematical Modeling by Frank R. Giordano, William P. Fox, Steven B. Horton
Philadelphia, PA
Dear MacGregor & readers,
What is logic? Well, the word is used in several inter-related ways. What is fundamental, I'd say, is that (deductive) logic is a science (or discipline) which codifies rules of valid inference. A valid inference is one, such that if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion. In this way, logic can also be thought of as a collection of conditional statements, of various formal structures, e.g., "If P & Q, then P" or "If P and P only if Q, then Q." Whatever actual statements we substitute in these structures, the result will be valid.
Is logic invented or discovered? If logic is a codification of valid inferences, and valid inferences are all expressed in language (always in some language or other), then these systems of codification of valid inferences are certainly human inventions. (We might also say, perhaps they are "created"-- so as to capture valid inferences.) In much the same sense, physical theories are invented, they are creations in language and thought. (We see this more clearly before they are confirmed or accepted as true.) But we should not take the word "invented" as implying something arbitrary. Physical theories, e.g., may also involve important discoveries, even though the system (or theories) which express the discoveries are invented.
Truths, of course, are not invented. But any systems of language by means of which we recognize and formulate truths are invented. All of science and recognized or accepted truths involve such systems of language and thought.
Because of this, the question tends to mislead. Our paradigms of "inventions" are mechanical or electrical devices which successfully serve some recognized purpose or function. We ask "Who invented the telephone or radio?" But, on the other hand, all such devices involve discoveries of the principles by which they function. We might also ask, say, who discovered the principles on which the telephone or radio depend?
H.G. Callaway
Logic is related to thinking and reasoning, how can these things preexist and wait for humans to discover?
I believe 3-tyred static syllogism is human's invention ...
I guess it depends upon what we can conclude about Chrysippus's dog:
- Abstract: https://philpapers.org/rec/ABELFD
- Full paper: https://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/DogLogic.pdf
Would logic exist if humans did not? My old fashioned answer to this is that the process of logical inference would not exist but the reference of logic would exist (insofar as our concepts have reference in the world). The reason for this is that it seems to me that logic comes from analysis of concepts. In particular, classical logic follows from an analysis of the concept of a true proposition. For example, according to Tarski's inductive truth definition "for all x Ax is true" means that for all individuals a in the universe of discourse "Aa is true". This last assertion defines both truth of a proposition and "for all". Given that we can construct particular representatives of logical concepts ("and", "implies", "for all" etc.) the concepts will have objective reference (insofar as the references exist in the world around us). To be clear about what that means, in any empty world logic would not be true because there would be nothing for it to be true of. In my view the same is true of mathematics, but mathematics requires the construction (or hypothesis) of structures (and hence is not analytic in the same way as logic is). Told you that my views were old fashioned!
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Yu & Readers,
Compare the analogous question:
The natural sciences are related to thinking and reasoning, how can these things preexist and wait for humans to discover?
The ambiguity is in the words "these things." Obviously, "thinking and reasoning" are not things we wait to discover in the natural sciences. It is the character of the natural world which waits to be discovered.
In a similar way, it is not our linguistic formulations or our thinking and reasoning which wait to be discovered in the discipline of logic. But we think and reason and creatively formulate system in order to discover which argument forms are valid. It is not that it is impossible to go wrong in our formulations or account of the valid deductive forms.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Logic is related to thinking and reasoning, how can these things preexist and wait for humans to discover?
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Bura & readers,
I wonder what you may have in mind here under the heading of "from falsehood, anything follows"? This may suggest "any conditional statement with a false antecedent is true," (which reflects the truth-table for the conditional "If...then...").
On the other hand, you may have in mind that any statement at all is derivable from a contradiction (or logically false statement, such as one of the form "P & not-P").
Note that though every conditional statement with a false antecedent is regarded as true, given that the antecedent is false, we cannot derive the consequent from such a conditional in any sound argument.
If the point is simply that alternatives to classical logic have been considered, and it is possible to go wrong in our accounts of valid forms of inferences, then the point is well taken--though it may still be of some importance to distinguish the two alternatives indicated above.
Logic as a formal system was invented/discovered by the ancient Greeks, and later corrected and expanded. No doubt people argued logically (and illogically) long before Aristotle.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
What I can say with a high degree of certainty is that we may be able to doubt the principle "from falsehood, anything follows", though it is obvious requirements of civilization prevent us from reaching the conclusion that "anything goes". Therefore, my best guess is that Logic is a pre-condition of civilized society.
I suppose humans (discvent) logic which means, usually human tends for discovery before inventing something.
I think non-classical logics are still the results of analyses of concepts. Constructive logic is the result of analysing the concept of proof, and fuzzy logics (usually classical Boolean algebras, but could be probabilistic) are an attempt to analyse degrees of uncertainty in judgement. Logics should never give rise to synthetic a priori judgements. Personally i prefer to think of logical truths as analytic necessary truths and mathematical truths as synthetic necessary truths. Scientific truths are in general contingent synthetic.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Powell & readers,
I am not sure that we want to get into debates concerning the analytic and the synthetic on this thread, and in consequence I have hesitated to follow up on your note. But I have done a lot of work on related themes.
Readers may want to have a look at my book of essays, Meaning without Analyticity:
Book Meaning without Analyticity, Essays on Logic, Language and Meaning
I also published an earlier book, on related themes, titled Context for Meaning and Analysis,
See:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/9051835280/ref=sr_1_1_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1548439585&sr=1-1&keywords=Context+for+Meaning+and+Analysis
I could make some of this available on the thread, if there is some interest. Generally, I am a skeptic on the analytic and the synthetic. Concepts and definitions come and go, over the longer term.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Personally I prefer to think of logical truths as analytic necessary truths and mathematical truths as synthetic necessary truths. Scientific truths are in general contingent synthetic.
Dear Prof. Callaway,
I am certainly interested in hearing your views on analyticity, and will have a look at your latest book on this topic. You are probably right that this is not the right thread for that discussion, but I have to say that I have more problem with the notions of "a priori" and "a posteriori" than with "analytic" and "synthetic". I cannot deny though that the Kant's answer to the question "how is synthetic a priori judgement possible" is one of the masterstrokes of philosophy. Taking the cue from Frege, I think that the view that a judgement is a (synthetic) function from predicates and objects to truth values remains a powerful model for scientific and mathematical language to this day.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Powell & readers,
Well, as it happens, I am also quite skeptical about the terms "a priori" and "a posteriori." I see no need for the concepts. I think there were some interesting precursors in Greek philosophy, but they got absolutized subsequently. (This is perhaps suggested by the Latin origins of the terms.) What comes out of this skepticism is an empiricism. Particular statements or claims may be justly regarded as more or less worthy of being conserved in an accepted system, while others are reasonably regarded as more vulnerable. Statements and claims may be regarded as deductive consequences of particular systems, with others outside the system. That's about as far as I would go.
This is not to say, of course, that there are no logical or mathematical truths. There are also truths which we will deduce with the aid of definitions as auxiliaries within systems. But I find little use for the traditional debates of early modern philosophy. Wherever our idea may come from, they are to be tested by reference to evidence, prediction and explanatory value.
You'll perhaps recall that Kant regarded the Euclidean character of space as a matter of the synthetic a prior. But basically, this was refuted in more recent physics. The tendency has been to reject the related lines of inquiry in epistemology. Getting into this would take us pretty far from the present question, though it is related to the question of the scope and character of logic.
H.G. Callaway
Logic is used as a tool. Thus, logic was invented ; not discovered
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Vladimirov & readers,
Compare the analogous argument:
Newton's laws of motion and gravity are tools used in predicting the motions of the planets. Thus Newton's physics was invented not discovered.
Will you buy that argument, too? Would anything in science count as discovered, on your account?
H.G. Callaway
Humans invented logic. In fact, humans have invested a lot of different logics. The question then is "what logic properly helps explain reality?" One of my interests is in reformulating a lot of mathematical bodies of theory, as well as scientific inquiry, in a paraconsistent logic. The odd issue about that idea is that for a given theory, it can be true that P(T and ~T) is close to 1.https://www.researchgate.net/project/Probably-not-Solving-the-Problem-of-Induction
Logic is in-built in the fundamental fabric of Nature. All forms, phenomena and their interactions (which are essentially in terms of energy processes) in Nature exist and evolve in accordance with logic, i.e. the immutable specific relationship between cause and effect. Where there will not be an effect without some specific causes and it is only those specific causes which will explain that specific effect and nothing external or other than that (any supernatural laws or forces existing outside of this natural logical process).
In other words, all phenomena or forms in Nature, in all space and all time and in all layers and dimensions cannot exist, operate or evolve illogically. Thus, Logic is an integral and inseparable property of energy processes constituting all phenomena, forms and their interconnections, interactions and evolution. Logic and energy co-exist.
In view of the above, logic has as many forms as phenomena have and it goes as far as the interactive interactions of a phenomenon go. Its form, nature and reach depends on the specific phenomenon of which it is a part. It can be short-term, long-term, extreme micro and utmost macro. And all its levels and layers exist as an integrated logic process or what can be called the 'Universal Logic Process'.
Logical reasoning which is a mental function is one form and progeny of this 'Universal logic Process' (ULP) or in other words what we call Nature. Nature actually exists and operates as ULP.
Man's interaction with the environment eventually leads to the discovery of habits and this is substantially the basic requirement for making the wheel of knowledge work.To this end, humans employ reasoning strategies to assess the validity of the habits they discover. As such, It seems that humans invented logic in order to turn the wheel of knowledge more effectively.
On the scope and character of logic, there is a view (common in the Anglo-Saxon tradition until the early 20th Century) that logic is a method for arriving at probable sound conclusions from a set of premisses (representing evidence). Logic according to this view is deductive, inductive and possibly abductive. For the sake of clarity, deductive logic is the process at deriving sound conclusions from premisses, inductive logic is inference of a likely generalisation based on repeated observation of the truth of the premisses, and abductive logic is the specific likely inference of the premiss from repeated observation of the truth of the consequent (what follows from the premiss). Nowadays most people I suspect would not regard abductive or inductive logic as logic at all, because they do not guarantee correct conclusions. But I think that abductive and inductive logic are a very reasonable attempt to identify methods of scientific enquiry, that is to say "logic" as a methodology or tools of the trade.
I mention this view of logic because it is an empiricist view of logic (although not a modern one). I like this view of logic because it is honest and clear, and attempts to set out the rules of good experimental science. But I doubt that anyone would hold this view any more. The reasons are twofold. Philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn argued (successfully in my view) that science is a set of interconnected theories about the world, and scientific interference involves applying a set of community values (which change over time, but may be objectively justifiable of course). Secondly, logic as scientific methodology relies on the notions of rule and truth of propositions, and does not attempt to explain either rules or truth. This second criticism has led to a retreat to deductive logic (as a well defined set of rules) and to the adoption of a minimal theory of truth (proposition A is true if A). Personally I think we can explain what a rule is (via a generic instance) and truth of propositions can be established by following the rules for truth as set out in Tarski's inductive definition.
In terms of whether humans invented logic, the view of logic above would say that logic was invented by humans to enable discovery of objective truths of nature. This is not exactly my own view, which I have set out in previous posts.
I don't see great difference between invention and discovery. Invention is the special case of discovery. Inventing something you discover how to do something.
They come to know about 'logic' during discussion or arguing on some topic/s.
Thanks.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Salustri & readers,
Yes, definitely. It is important to distinguish the academic discipline of logic, including systems of rules of inferences produced by logicians, and the study of them, from whatever it may be that logic is about, say, the actual inferences made in the use of language --which may, of course be valid or invalid. One might say, then, that systems of rules for valid inference are invented to comprehend (to take in or mark out) the actual valid inferences we make and to distinguish them from the invalid sort (which, unfortunately, we also sometimes make.) Training in logic heightens our perception of the differences. We may be said to discover the validity or invalidity of actual inferences made --by ourselves or by others.
Logics are, of course, expressed in language, often a formal language (with a mappings onto ordinary language.) I don't see the point of saying that logic is a language. Structures of reality involved are always partly a matter of the relations of linguistic expressions of a given language to things we talk about. E.g., on no consistent interpretation of the expressions of a language does the same statement come out both true and false. In a sense, logic is all about needed consistency in linguistic usage. I take it, though, that relations between linguistic expressions and the things we talk about by use of them are also "structures in reality."
H.G. Callaway
Validation when others make sense of my logic :) else not a clear logic :(
Dear H.G. Gallaway:
"Newton's laws of motion and gravity are tools used in predicting the motions of the planets" as ANY OTHER LAWS OF NATURE - of course were DISCOVERED - not invented. The Laws of Nature always existed and the main role of the DISOVERER was to clearly/precisely formulate them. Invention- is CREATION (well, or discovery) of something New- unknown before.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Murthy & readers,
A system of logical rules merely tells us what statements (conclusions) follow deductively from other statements (premises). In general terms, an argument with the premises A, B, C, ... and the conclusion D, is deductively valid just in case, the set of statements including (A, B, C, ... not-D) is inconsistent (they can't all be true together).
Notice again the distinction between deductive validity of arguments and soundness of arguments. An argument is only sound if it is deductively valid and the premises are all true. But logical systems do not tell us, in general, what premises are true. In consequence, it is possible to agree about the validity or invalidity of arguments, while disagreeing about the truth of the premises.
Deductive validity is not a matter of your views vs. those of others. Its a matter of the relationships between the interpretations of the statements. Differences in logical systems, by the way, make very little difference to practical argumentation, debate and persuasion.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Validation when others make sense of my logic :) else not a clear logic :(
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Vladimirov & readers,
Notice the ambiguity is your use of the term "laws of nature." If they always existed, then how could Newton (or Einstein, say) have "formulated" them."? Formulating is something that we do in language at dated points in time. Wouldn't you agree, for instance that it was, indeed Newton, who first wrote down Newton's laws of motion and gravity? Obviously, what he wrote down did not exist before hand--that is why we credit him with discovery. In consequence there is a perfectly clear sense in which the laws which Newton wrote didn't exist before he wrote them.
What presumably always existed was certain patterns in natural phenomena --which we might identify by means of Newton's formulations. But Newton did not "formulate" the pre-existing patterns of natural phenomena. He didn't change or create them by writing down his laws. But he did change our understanding of nature. The written laws were Newton's creations, or we might say, his inventions-- of use in expressing knowledge of patterns of phenomena of nature. But to say that the written laws are a creation is not to say they are arbitrary or fictions.
As I say, the ordinary usage of "invent" and "discover" do not quite fit the facts of what goes on in science.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
The Laws of Nature always existed and the main role of the DISOVERER was to clearly/precisely formulate them
Splendid, H.G. If all legislators, all public- and private sector administrators and all academics understood those three short paragraphs, then we'd be much more likely to have reasonably well functioning governance systems.
Logic is the science of sound reasoning or good argumentation. Whether one is reasoning formally or informally, deductively, inductively, or abductively, one is doing logic. Now, sound reasoning can be expressed through language or thinking, but "being" is the home of language and thoughts ( rational or irrational). Therefore, if humans invented language, thoughts or thinking, and conversely, logic, then who invented "being?" My answer is that logical reasoning is a capacity available to humans, but humans did not invent logic. The same way a lion has the capacity to chase down a prey, kill, and eat it, but did not invent hunting.
Paul's approach to the question has merit. Humans neither discovered nor invented logic. Instead, logic is an inherent attribute of matter - much more especially of matter organized as a life form.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Lusk, Nnodim & readers,
This is a very broad conception of logic, indeed. Notice that logic as a discipline and field of study takes up a normative relation to thought and inference. It would perhaps be more plausible to hold that forms of inferences pertain to life forms. But not all forms of inference conform to rules of deductive logic--quite the contrary. People and, perhaps, other forms of life make faulty inferences on the basis of insufficient evidence or defective appreciation of logical norms.
There are, as I have stipulated, many inter-related uses of the term "logic." Certainly, we can also stipulate that people sometimes argued logically, before the formal invention/discovery of logic. Aristotle, as it is often said, did not invent correct reasoning, but he did contribute significantly to our ability to recognize it.
I suspect that the logicians may be quite disappointed to learn that none of them has every discovered correct and incorrect logical forms.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Paul's approach to the question has merit. Humans neither discovered nor invented logic. Instead, logic is an inherent attribute of matter - much more especially of matter organized as a life form.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy of Mathematics