Actually it's not a dictionary site Bartlett. It's more a philosophical one... when using terms like "science", "logic", "creativity" and so on in conversation I think it's a form of self-respect to have some basic knowledge. Anyway I put that link here not only for you as you've got a rather good idea of what logic is already, it's for anybody who reads this thread and is interested in going further into this. It's as good a starting point as any other. I was just using your question as trampoline lol

*bouncing*

I completely agree Bart honey. Everyone has their own opinion of what is logical and what is not. Yes, there is a term in the dictionary that states what the people that made up the dictionary think the definition of logic is but, we are all different individuals with different situations and to generalize and just use the term logical would in my opinion be a tad illogical. Now is that logical to you? lol

__________________

Actually no, it's not... logic obeys precise rules. If it differs this much it's called opinion...sorry...

And a logical opinion it is FOTH. LOL

__________________

logic may obey precise rules, but not everyone interprets that said logic the same way FOTH. everything in this world is open to individual interpretation no matter how hard you argue that point. several of the men and women in this forum will tell you that.

__________________

Logic is merely an explanation of how the human mind approximates reality. It yields inaccurate results because not all premises are known.

Now, since we don't know whether the human mind actually 'exists', and in what kind of state between inexistence and existence it 'is', binding the definition of truth to it is silly.

'What is and what is not logical', can differ, however. People perceive different kind of premises, different kind of inputs when viewing different 'objects'. The process of thought remains the same, but because of this difference in view, no true logical conclusion exists.

Mr U

__________________

I rest my case. someone understands me lmao

__________________

Exactly my point. Logic CAN be true but it does not have to be true, it does not even have to be factual. Individual interpretation is irrelevant in this case. A sentence is either a logical construction or it's not. Of course it's not always easy to tell if something is or is not consequent... but it's still just a way of reasoning that obeys rather clearly defined rules. A lot of people get along without using it a lot, using intuition , instinct and other things instead lol. Bartlett and SB, did one of you actually read the definition behind the link I posted? Anyway this is getting rather off topic. We could open a new thread "what is logic" if it's interesting enough for you...

Here I disagree. It flows from the believe that everything existing in all the universe would be known, and such a thing is impossible. Thus, one can not know the truth. One can, again, wonder whether the truth indeed exists.

And yes, many do it instinctively. However, logic is handy when you are debating to check whether someone is not twisting stuff around. Than again, if someone is, you mostly do not need logic to see it. It is worth knowing however, that those who do it instinctively have received math training. The western world are all very powerful in logic, because we are highly adept at the lower fields of math.

Mr U

__________________

I stand corrected. I wanted to say "logic MAY be true" lol. You're right HU ;-) (and you're nagging even worse 'n me on rethoric points lol. Go you)

Hehe, well, you show the most problematic issue in this discussion. Rhetoric. Because of our imperfect use of it, opponents of rationality (read: absolutists) continue to point out what they perceive to be inconsistencies or flaws in logic, but which is rather their minds lacking in creativity. Just thought I'd tease you there :P.

Quote:

You're right HU

Hmm... Hearing that is better than sex :P

Mr U

__________________