Prof Gillian Russell - Logical Nihilism: Could There Be No Logic?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2019
- University of Edinburgh Philosophy Society Lecture Series 2018/19
Talk Date: 15/11/2018
Speaker: Gillian Russell, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Title: "Logical Nihilism: Could there be no logic?"
Abstract: Logical monists and pluralists disagree about how many correct logics there are; the monists say there is just one, the pluralists that there are more. Could it turn out that both are wrong, and that there is no logic at all?
I re-watch this too often for my own good. This literally changed my life. Keep being awesome.
Brilliant.
This reminds me about a paper by Girard.
Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules
Why not upload all the lectures?
Because yes
@@tonyneto165 yee logik
In case you want a natural-language sentence that acts like Prem (true if it's a premise, false if it's a conclussion), here's one:
"I suppose I'm a billionnaire".
If it's a premise, it's true (cause I suppose so, for the sake of some argument). If it's a conclusion, it's false (I don't actually suppose that I'm a billionnaire).
But aren't you attempting to present a logical case against logic? If logic doesn't matter, why try to be consistent throughout your lecture? Wouldn't your case be strengthened if you titled the lecture "Logical Nihilism" and then only spoke about fruit flies?
Not at all. Because, the question of the value of the proposition would remain. To discuss fruit flies would be to avoid, rather than answer the question. What she undertakes is to present a logical nihilist's answer to the challenges from each logical perspective.
@@leerugely2805 How can there be value for a proposition without first presupposing the laws of logic? There can't be truth value, at all, without the laws of logic because any proposition put forth can be both true and false at the same time and place... rendering the entire concept of truth value void.
maybe, quite cute
Yeah just what we want the powers that be on earth to start believing. That there is no logic. Talk about hell on earth for the rest of us.
True logic, that is, pure and authentic logic is not philosophical logic, let it be clear, mathematical logic, logic per se, is not the second logic after the traditional, but the first one, only historically philosophical logic is the first, but as expressive power and effectiveness mathematical logic clearly outperforms philosophical logic, we are talking about a scientific logic, logic is no longer very related to the traditional one, classical logic is the algebraic logic of lattice's, equational one, predicate relational calculi.
Relational logic calculi already has the expressive power to reduce the calculus of integrals and differentials to predicate logic, model theory has applications in functional analysis, non-standard analysis of infinitesimals lies in model theory.
For example, I'm mostly a logician, but I'm not a philosopher. Logic is now unfolding beyond the fences of museum philosophy, which seeks historical origins to consolidate its power through antique glorious past.
Hi Charles Sanders Peirce, is this you?
Well, she quite literally has no argument. So she’s got that going for her.
In the talk she presents the main argument the talk's concerned with from 8.28. If you have a quick look at the paper on which this talk is based, she gives an explicit argument in the second paragraph:
1. To be a law of logic, a principle must hold in complete generality.
2. No principles hold in complete generality.
3. So there are no laws of logic.
@@matthewmcclure8799 does premise 2. hold in complete generality?
@@JesseMoshe all the argument needs from it is it being true
I think modus tolens is a law of logic. So if her argument is valid by mtt and moreover sound, then she very literally has no valid and sound argument. I can appreciate the explicitness of the argument insofar as I can understand absurdity. But I’m struggling to see any truth in addition to that.
@@JesseMoshe sure, if the argument's sound, there are no sound arguments, so it's not sound. but even if invalid (so unsound), what matters is that the premisses appropriately support the conclusion. if this is in that subset of cases for which mtt is unproblematic (locally valid, if you like), then the argument seems to work even if there are counterexamples to mtt-as long as this argument isn't one of them, it goes through fine. (then there's just the question of defending (1) and (2), which is what a fair bit of the paper is dedicated to.)
This is non-sense. Logic is a meta-language, it has nothing to do with reality.
I’m By no means formally educated in this area... but wasn’t that the whole point of formal logic, that it excluded metaphysics from the conversation? I feel this is all kinda Wittgenstein-ian in that they cannot speak to reality in and for itself and “where one cannot speak one must remain silent”. I thought this always was gonna be pure epistemology. Maybe I’m getting muddled though
@@ConfusedDom As someone who almost has 2 degrees in philosophy I would say you seem along the right track. That's certainly was the goal for logical positivists which Wittgenstein is often associated with (though he himself was not a positivist). Though I'm not sure the defense of logic is so much an epistemic defense so much as a methodical defense of the role logic plays in hypotheses or perhaps a defense of whether logic exists. in any case don't quote me on that last part.
Either way I haven't actually watched this video yet, I just saw it shared on FB and it intrigued me. At first this sounded ridiculous, but based on what I heard from FB commenters this sounds like a far more sincere challenge than I was lead to believe from the title. I may hafta watch it if I find the time. I am slightly skeptical however of the conclusion "logic does not exist" (if that is what is being suggested), but even if that is the conclusion I'd hafta see how they get there. Anyway, peace out!