Aristotle box of logic for common sense to modal logic
ancient Greeks Aristotle provided a framework for understanding deductive reasoning and laid the foundations for the study of formal logic—his box of logic for common sense. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, George Boole, and Bertrand Russell helped with symbolic logic and the development of mathematical logic.
Box-in or Box-out: only endpoint counts-Road leads to Rome
My rebuttal uses the "logic is a box" analogy to show how wrong it is to say that different ways of thinking are inherently wrong or better just because they come from a different culture. Comparing it to the fact that the gold element in both 12K and 24K gold bracelets is the same, this shows that the essence of logical analysis stays the same, even when cultures are different. The main point of the argument is that logical principles are universal. It is emphasized that cultural differences show up not in the logic itself but in the standards and tools used to understand and solve complicated problems.
In the tapestry of human intellectual diversity, the notion that "every road leads to Rome" finds resonance in the realization that diverse cultural and logical frameworks offer a multitude of paths toward problem-solving and understanding. Each unique cultural perspective represents a distinct avenue for navigating the complexities of the human experience, enriching the global landscape of intellectual discourse with a rich tapestry of thought and analysis.
郭德纲说相声没有了年轻时的锐气,变成老油条了。近年似乎只讲“于谦的爸爸”。有人提意见说他老说于谦的爸爸。郭德纲的自我辩护是:“我说相声的次数太多。如果一年只讲一次,上网搜也搜不到,就不会有这样的抱怨了”(大意)。
非常简单的逻辑。让俺想到另一个故事:
“1941年,第二次世界大战期间,美国哥伦比亚大学统计学亚伯拉罕·沃德教授接受美国海军要求,运用他在统计方面的专业知识给出关于《飞机应该如何加强防护,才能降低被炮火击落的几率》的建议。沃德教授针对盟军的轰炸机遭受攻击后的相关数据,进行分析和研究后发现:机翼是整个飞机中最容易遭受攻击的位置,但是机尾则是最少被攻击的位置。因此沃德教授给出的结论是“我们应该强化机尾的防护”,但是美国海军指挥官认为“应该加强机翼的防护,因为这是最容易被击中的位置”。沃德教授提出以下加强机身防护的建议:
1.本次统计的样本,仅包含没有因敌火射击而坠毁并安全返航的轰炸机。
2.沃德教授假设所有中弹的弹著点应该会平均分布在机身各处,而能安全返航的轰炸机机身中弹数量较多的区域,是即使被击中也比较不会导致坠机的部位。
3.机翼被击中很多次的轰炸机,大多数仍然能够安全返航。
4.机尾弹孔较少的原因并非真的不容易中弹,而是一旦中弹,其安全返航并生还的可能性就微乎其微。
军方最终采取了教授提出的增加机尾防护的建议,后来证实该决策是完全正确的。这项研究对当时仍在发展初期的作业研究领域具有深远的影响。“
(链接:https://www.zhihu.com/question/296636860/answer/502069717)
两者逻辑何其相似。
郭德纲,中国人,学历不高,没留过学,不搞科研,不搞统计,为啥判断问题的方式和名校统计学教授这么象呢?
因为这种观察对比析能力是人类本来就有的。
无独有偶,前两天刷到一个四岁小朋友的视频,他爸爸带他去了一个水浒影视城之类的地方,问他这个地方好不好。小朋友说好。问他为啥,他说“我爱看的他们都演了;他们演的都是我爱看的”。一正一反,完全堵死了上面军方与抱怨者的逻辑漏洞。
这位小朋友显然没有学过逻辑学。但论证方式完全符合逻辑。
如果不是拿剧本摆拍,那只能说明这种能力是人类本来就有的,幼年就可能发育完全。
那么是不是摆拍呢?俺觉得不是。有兴趣的朋友可以自己去判断(这个小朋友叫郑羽硕,油管上微信上都有他的视频)。
退一百步,是照剧本摆拍。那么剧本的作者显然也是中国人。依然是中国的逻辑。
无论他是否有剧本,如果仔细观察就会发现,身边的小朋友就常常表现出惊人“科研素质”,很多判断与推理或者疑问都是科研型的。
相比之下,倒是一些受了西方教育的人喜欢说“中国没有逻辑”之类的话。可见,西方教育不但没有提升他们的逻辑水平,反而严重摧残了这些人童年就具备的逻辑能力。
准确地说,中国不是没有逻辑,而是没有逻辑学。中国古人也不是不懂逻辑,而是少有完全依赖逻辑的科学研究。
这些人连这种区分能力也没有,却敢说“中国人如何没有逻辑”,可见盲目崇拜害中国人之深也。
市面上充斥的成功人士学,也都是同类的东西。阿罗频多和黄鹤升都讲,综合观为难,而最为重要。
盐之于菜肴,维生素之于人体,小小的自由时间和乐趣之于孩子,都是如此。
牛顿以前,引力根本不起作用,苹果熟了脱离树枝,方向都是随机哒。
有些就从中国直接飘到欧洲,恰好牛顿被一个往下落的苹果击中,发明了经典力学。
从此万物都有了固定的运动方向。
逻辑学和逻辑,
美学和美,
语言学和语言
都一样。这些学问产生以前,规律都不存在。
“准确地说,中国不是没有逻辑,而是没有逻辑学。中国古人也不是不懂逻辑,而是少有完全依赖逻辑的科学研究。”
想自夸是吗?这本来就是你说的啊~~~岂能不对!
ancient Greeks Aristotle provided a framework for understanding deductive reasoning and laid the foundations for the study of formal logic—his box of logic for common sense. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, George Boole, and Bertrand Russell helped with symbolic logic and the development of mathematical logic.
https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/teatime/735720.html
My rebuttal uses the "logic is a box" analogy to show how wrong it is to say that different ways of thinking are inherently wrong or better just because they come from a different culture. Comparing it to the fact that the gold element in both 12K and 24K gold bracelets is the same, this shows that the essence of logical analysis stays the same, even when cultures are different. The main point of the argument is that logical principles are universal. It is emphasized that cultural differences show up not in the logic itself but in the standards and tools used to understand and solve complicated problems.
In the tapestry of human intellectual diversity, the notion that "every road leads to Rome" finds resonance in the realization that diverse cultural and logical frameworks offer a multitude of paths toward problem-solving and understanding. Each unique cultural perspective represents a distinct avenue for navigating the complexities of the human experience, enriching the global landscape of intellectual discourse with a rich tapestry of thought and analysis.