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.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction:
- 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.
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.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction:
- 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.
