Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

The master of Fools is a master of logic Pro: Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results. The Fool: Yeah this is what I was expecting. Your concept of logic is way off. I know somebody who could help you. Just wait here I go and send him here okay. Pro: Hmm okay. I guess. 3 hours later Pro: Well what a liar that guy was. Oh wait a minute, somebody coming. He walks like he thinks he is important of some eccentric distinguished gentlemen. 1 min Pro: On second thought. He seems to look more and more foolish the closer he gets. Is he dressed in a completely purple business suit? Wow. His glasses look silver and ridiculously too big for his head. What an idiot. He eyes are huge and all googly. I don’t know which one to look at. The Foolish professor: They there young fellow how goes you? Hill Top University: Forming definitions(L1) The Foolish professor: For the sake of argument let’s grant that that con is right: Logic is simply a valid means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results. Symbols are physical constructions which symbolize something other than themselves or they wouldn’t be symbols now would they. Aka to be symbols they must symbolize something. So this is a problem for pros understanding of logic right of the bat. If logic is simply the validation of symbol manipulations, then how could you claim if it is valid or not. If logic is simply validation of manipulating symbols, logic would be synonymous with logical results. That is logic result would have the same meaning as valid means of manipulating result. That is, it’s completely circular to have used the Word logically within the definition or meaning of Logic, because it depends on the definition of logic. For we need to know what logic is first, before we understand what a logical result could means. Therefore definition is nonsensical. These arguments are mutually exclusive. Aka V Form. What does that mean? Hill Top University: Argument type: V form The Foolish professor: In V form argument, the conclusion is supported by mutually exclusive multiple premises/arguments. That is to refute the conclusion you must refute each premise E.g V Form P1 .............P2 ..... here P1 and P2 support C1 independently ......| ....... |........ C1 Picture strings attached to P1 to C1 and another from P2 to C1 which are holding up C1. For the conclusion to be refuted, C1 must fall down go boom! The premises are independent supports for the Conclusion. Mind you in my case this debate I have three individual supports against Pro meaning of logic. I get the impression most DDO peeps are only familiar with T type arguments. Hill Top University: Argument type: T form The Foolish professor: T form arguments are when the conclusion is dependent on all the premises being true in order for the conclusion being True. E.g T FormP1 -----P2 .......|.......|..... C1 The line marks are there to represent the string of connections, but the support of the conclusion depends on the INTERACTION of P1 and P2. If one premise is false or uncertain, C1 fall down go Boom!!. Hill Top University: logical interaction The Foolish professor: Conditionals and interaction: In order for a conditional to be valid: P->Q 1. P must interact with Q (they must share an interacting context) e.g. Valid example, If I push my monitor then it will move back. Let Push my monitor=P It will move back=M Thus P->M is a valid Conditional. Invalid Conditional: If I drink some water then a bomb will go off in India. Let Drink water=D Bomb in India= B D->B is invalid because there is no interacting context (context in which D affects B) 2. There must be order: That is P must depend on Q Aka (1) P must be a sufficient condition of Q. (2) Q must be a necessity of P If this is no order then all you have is a conjunction (P&Q) Premise interaction: I have seen some really bad arguments be accepted in large numbers. P1 this is a logical argument. P2 Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument. P3…. P4 …… P5… P1 does not interacting with the argument is not a part of forming the conclusion P1 is a conclusion not a premise. Therefore it can only go at the end. P2 also does not interact with the rest of the argument. Thus it’s not a premise for this argument. Remember the form of an argument is Just One large conditional. E.g. Antecedent (p1,p2,p3)-------------> Consequence(C1) The Foolish professor: Well this is the end of today’s lesson. Got to go. Pro: Wait hey.. I got questions. The Foolish professor: Nah! I got to go now, But just remember one thing. Pro: what’s that? The Foolish professor: Vote Fool!!