# Explaining how Formal Logic is flawed and how to fix it

#### Echogem222

##### Well-Known Member
Just so all of us are on the same page, here are the 4 laws of Formal Logic:

1. Law of Identity:
- Every thing is identical to itself.
- A is A (A = A).
- This law states that any entity or object is identical to itself; it is the foundation of logical reasoning.

- A statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously.
- A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time (A and ¬A).
- This law asserts that contradictions cannot exist in reality, and it prevents logical inconsistencies.

3. Law of Excluded Middle:
- A statement is either true or false; there is no middle ground.
- A is either true or ¬A is true, there is no third option.
- This law ensures that every statement has a definite truth value, either true or false.

4. Law of Rational Inference (Law of Syllogism):
- If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C.
- If A → B and B → C, then A → C.
- This law allows for the logical deduction of new conclusions based on existing premises or statements.

+++

Everyone assumes that the person using Formal Logic has a certain level of awareness to be correct, but there is no such law that says having awareness of the way things are is required. So if you have limited awareness of the way things are, it's possible to use Formal Logic and come to the wrong conclusion. But more importantly than even that, we are using Formal Logic all of the time, if we were not using Formal Logic all of the time, then it would be possible to use illogical reasoning while you're still aware that 1+1=2, to conclude that 1+1 does not equal 2, but you can't do this, because that would contradict your awareness that 1+1=2.

So, to solve this problem instead of ignoring it, I have invented two new words that are meant to replace formal logic:
____________________________
False conclusion Logic (FC Logic):

1.) Law of Identity (A is A): This law states that every entity or object is identical to itself. In other words, any statement or thing is what it is and cannot be anything else.

2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A): According to this law, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. It means that contradictions are not allowed within the same context.

3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A): This law states that for any statement, it must be either true or false; there is no third option. There are no middle-ground possibilities.

4.) Modus Ponens: This is a valid logical inference rule. If we have a conditional statement "If A, then B," and we know that "A" is true, then we can logically conclude that "B" is true.

5.) Law of weakness to True conclusion Logic: FC Logic must be provable as being wrong using TC logic.

6.) Law of lack of awareness: Must lack awareness of the way things actually are.

True conclusion Logic (TC Logic):

1.) Law of Identity (A is A): This law states that every entity or object is identical to itself. In other words, any statement or thing is what it is and cannot be anything else.

2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A): According to this law, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. It means that contradictions are not allowed within the same context.

3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A): This law states that for any statement, it must be either true or false; there is no third option. There are no middle-ground possibilities.

4.) Modus Ponens: This is a valid logical inference rule. If we have a conditional statement "If A, then B," and we know that "A" is true, then we can logically conclude that "B" is true.

5.) Law of immunity to FC Logic: TC logic must be unable to be proved as wrong with FC Logic.

6.) Law of awareness: Must have awareness of the way things actually are.
____________________________

By being aware of the possibility of FC logic, individuals might be more inclined to question their assumptions, challenge their own beliefs, and seek out evidence and valid premises to support their conclusions. This increased awareness can lead to a more robust and reliable logical analysis.

Moreover, the awareness of alternative logical systems, like FC logic, can also foster a deeper understanding of the limitations and strengths of different approaches to reasoning. This broader perspective can be beneficial in various fields, including philosophy, science, law, and everyday problem-solving.

I don't want to quote Spock....

I don't want to quote Spock....

Care to explain what the issue is?

Care to explain what the issue is?
wil may say something else, but for me, I just want to know what the reason is for starting a thread about formal logic.
Formal logic is awesome, and at a glance it seems what you have posted is accurate as to what formal logic is.
You seem to have critiques of it, which I'd have to take another gander at.
But, are you going somewhere with it? Are you looking for responses, questions, etc... ??

wil may say something else, but for me, I just want to know what the reason is for starting a thread about formal logic.
Formal logic is awesome, and at a glance it seems what you have posted is accurate as to what formal logic is.
You seem to have critiques of it, which I'd have to take another gander at.
But, are you going somewhere with it? Are you looking for responses, questions, etc... ??
Well, in my post, I explained Formal Logic starting out, just so everyone who saw that post would know that I know what Formal Logic actually is, but as my post title is, I'm explaining why Formal Logic is flawed, and how to replace it with a better logic system that doesn't have the same flaws as formal logic does. But because I'm introducing a new logic system to replace formal logic, I've naturally expected that questions will be asked, which is why I made a thread about it.

Do you have any other questions?

Well, in my post, I explained Formal Logic starting out, just so everyone who saw that post would know that I know what Formal Logic actually is, but as my post title is, I'm explaining why Formal Logic is flawed, and how to replace it with a better logic system that doesn't have the same flaws as formal logic does. But because I'm introducing a new logic system to replace formal logic, I've naturally expected that questions will be asked, which is why I made a thread about it.

Do you have any other questions?
Not yet.
If you're trying to replace formal logic... replace it for whom?

Not yet.
If you're trying to replace formal logic... replace it for whom?
Yes, replace for everyone, that's what I mean.

Yes, replace for everyone, that's what I mean.
Intriguing.
How do you hope to do this?

Intriguing.
How do you hope to do this?
I feel like you're trolling me or something, because I posted an explanation of why Formal Logic is flawed and how to fix it, and naturally I expected some to reject it, but I also expect they'd explain to me why they're rejecting it, not just saying, "I don't believe you, so that's why you're wrong" because that would just be pointless and likely trolling. So, if you're going to keep wasting my time like this, I'm going to stop responding to you.

I feel like you're trolling me or something, because I posted an explanation of why Formal Logic is flawed and how to fix it, and naturally I expected some to reject it, but I also expect they'd explain to me why they're rejecting it, not just saying, "I don't believe you, so that's why you're wrong" because that would just be pointless and likely trolling. So, if you're going to keep wasting my time like this, I'm going to stop responding to you.
So that's your plan? To just stop responding to people?
You can do that. It's easy. I do on the daily to people online.
I thought you'd at least say you were going to publish a book or something that you hoped to distribute widely that would persuade people that your new version of logic was an upgrade.

Even better than just not responding, you can actually choose to "ignore member" hover over the name of the member and ignoring them will be one of the choices. Choose that, and you won't even see their posts.

Even better than just not responding, you can actually choose to "ignore member" hover over the name of the member and ignoring them will be one of the choices. Choose that, and you won't even see their posts.
Great idea, I'll do that for you, right now.

Well, in my post, I explained Formal Logic starting out, just so everyone who saw that post would know that I know what Formal Logic actually is, but as my post title is, I'm explaining why Formal Logic is flawed, and how to replace it with a better logic system that doesn't have the same flaws as formal logic does. But because I'm introducing a new logic system to replace formal logic, I've naturally expected that questions will be asked, which is why I made a thread about it.

Do you have any other questions?
I actually don't get your point. The formal logic you describe is commonly known, your sentences in the FC and the TC section are identical, and I don't know why you categorise it "flawed".

I actually don't get your point. The formal logic you describe is commonly known, your sentences in the FC and the TC section are identical, and I don't know why you categorise it "flawed".
I kind of thought that too. To be generous I was going to give it another look over to see if I had missed a subtlety. So when he asked if I had any questions I said "not yet" as I had no technical questions yet. But then when I followed up with a question about the aspirations and plans. That didn't go well. Oh well.

Great idea, I'll do that for you, right now.
Don't do it for me, do it for you!

(if you've done it, you won't see this!)

I actually don't get your point. The formal logic you describe is commonly known, your sentences in the FC and the TC section are identical, and I don't know why you categorise it "flawed".
Clearly you just skimmed read through it then, because laws 5-6 on both TC and FC logic are actually different. Are you just trolling me as well? Because I'm quickly getting sick of this.

Clearly you just skimmed read through it then, because laws 5-6 on both TC and FC logic are actually different. Are you just trolling me as well? Because I'm quickly getting sick of this.
Kids these days!

Just so all of us are on the same page, here are the 4 laws of Formal Logic:

1. Law of Identity:
- Every thing is identical to itself.
- A is A (A = A).
- This law states that any entity or object is identical to itself; it is the foundation of logical reasoning.

- A statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously.
- A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time (A and ¬A).
- This law asserts that contradictions cannot exist in reality, and it prevents logical inconsistencies.

3. Law of Excluded Middle:
- A statement is either true or false; there is no middle ground.
- A is either true or ¬A is true, there is no third option.
- This law ensures that every statement has a definite truth value, either true or false.

4. Law of Rational Inference (Law of Syllogism):
- If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C.
- If A → B and B → C, then A → C.
- This law allows for the logical deduction of new conclusions based on existing premises or statements.

+++

Everyone assumes that the person using Formal Logic has a certain level of awareness to be correct, but there is no such law that says having awareness of the way things are is required. So if you have limited awareness of the way things are, it's possible to use Formal Logic and come to the wrong conclusion. But more importantly than even that, we are using Formal Logic all of the time, if we were not using Formal Logic all of the time, then it would be possible to use illogical reasoning while you're still aware that 1+1=2, to conclude that 1+1 does not equal 2, but you can't do this, because that would contradict your awareness that 1+1=2.

So, to solve this problem instead of ignoring it, I have invented two new words that are meant to replace formal logic:
____________________________
False conclusion Logic (FC Logic):

1.) Law of Identity (A is A): This law states that every entity or object is identical to itself. In other words, any statement or thing is what it is and cannot be anything else.

2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A): According to this law, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. It means that contradictions are not allowed within the same context.

3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A): This law states that for any statement, it must be either true or false; there is no third option. There are no middle-ground possibilities.

4.) Modus Ponens: This is a valid logical inference rule. If we have a conditional statement "If A, then B," and we know that "A" is true, then we can logically conclude that "B" is true.

5.) Law of weakness to True conclusion Logic: FC Logic must be provable as being wrong using TC logic.

6.) Law of lack of awareness: Must lack awareness of the way things actually are.

True conclusion Logic (TC Logic):

1.) Law of Identity (A is A): This law states that every entity or object is identical to itself. In other words, any statement or thing is what it is and cannot be anything else.

2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A): According to this law, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. It means that contradictions are not allowed within the same context.

3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A): This law states that for any statement, it must be either true or false; there is no third option. There are no middle-ground possibilities.

4.) Modus Ponens: This is a valid logical inference rule. If we have a conditional statement "If A, then B," and we know that "A" is true, then we can logically conclude that "B" is true.

5.) Law of immunity to FC Logic: TC logic must be unable to be proved as wrong with FC Logic.

6.) Law of awareness: Must have awareness of the way things actually are.
____________________________

By being aware of the possibility of FC logic, individuals might be more inclined to question their assumptions, challenge their own beliefs, and seek out evidence and valid premises to support their conclusions. This increased awareness can lead to a more robust and reliable logical analysis.

Moreover, the awareness of alternative logical systems, like FC logic, can also foster a deeper understanding of the limitations and strengths of different approaches to reasoning. This broader perspective can be beneficial in various fields, including philosophy, science, law, and everyday problem-solving.
Well that is a whole lot of complicated logic, that is for sure.

As for the number 2 law of Law of Non-Contradiction, it is possible this Logic can be found true as well as Law 3.

Example, a Messenger of God is both God and not God. Explained using logic and reason.

Regards Tony

Well that is a whole lot of complicated logic, that is for sure.

As for the number 2 law of Law of Non-Contradiction, it is possible this Logic can be found true as well as Law 3.

Example, a Messenger of God is both God and not God. Explained using logic and reason.

Regards Tony