pragmatist comments on [Poll] Less Wrong and Mainstream Philosophy: How Different are We? - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 26 September 2012 12:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (627)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 27 September 2012 09:42:20AM 1 point [-]

Logic: classical or non-classical?

Submitting...

Comment author: pragmatist 27 September 2012 11:26:38AM *  6 points [-]

Classical: The standard kinds of logic that you learn in undergraduate logic classes are the best (or right) logics, the ones that best model (ETA: idealized versions of) our inferential processes. Examples of classical logics are Boolean logic and first-order predicate calculus. Classical logics are bivalent (sentences can only be true or false), obey the principle of the excluded middle (if a proposition is not true, its negation must be true) and obey the law of non-contradiction (a proposition and its negation cannot both be true).

Non-classical: The best logic is not classical. Non-classical logics usually reject the principle of the excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction. An example of a non-classical logic is dialetheism, according to which there are true contradictions (i.e. some sentences of the form "A and not A" are true). Proponents of non-classical logics argue that many of our scientific theories, if you probe deeply, involve inconsistencies, yet we don't regard them as trivially false. So they claim that we need to revise the way we understand logic to accurately model our inferential processes.

Comment author: komponisto 27 September 2012 04:04:22PM 4 points [-]

Classical: The standard kinds of logic that you learn in undergraduate logic classes are the best (or right) logics, the ones that best model our inferential processes

Is that the right criterion? Or should it be: the ones that best model the correct inferential processes, whether or not we humans adhere to them?

Comment author: pragmatist 27 September 2012 05:04:31PM 0 points [-]

Good point. I've edited to reflect this.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 September 2012 10:29:48PM 1 point [-]

What does Bayesian probability theory count as?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 28 September 2012 02:18:12AM 3 points [-]

What does Bayesian probability theory count as?

Bayesian probability is an extension of classical logic. I don't think philosophers consider it to be non-classical.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 September 2012 07:53:19AM 0 points [-]

Okay, so “Accept: classical” be it.

Comment author: kilobug 16 January 2013 04:31:38PM -1 points [-]

In my AI lessons, the "non-classical logic" course including all the probabilistic theories : fuzzy logic, Bayesian, ... that's why I voted "lean : non-classical", but I guess it's just a matter of vocabulary.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 27 September 2012 06:33:00PM 1 point [-]

I lean towards classical, but with the proviso that we have to be careful about what counts as a statement. Sneak in a statement with ambiguous truth values, and classical logic halts and catches fire. Personally I'm OK with rejecting such statemetns.