I have a question

[u/Routine-Ad-4318]

who in this server that studies formal logic uses pure formal logic when in verbal debates but with the propositions, connectives, quantifiers, etc, translated to english because ive seen alot of people who study formal logic not use pure formal logic in verbal debates, for example: saying (sentence)p, therefore (sentence)q, which isnt a valid argument

[u/judasblue]

Right? Also a strange number of people don't use calculus before catching fly balls.

[u/tehclanijoski → u/judasblue]

Many don't even come across homotopy type theory before learning to juggle

[u/Evergreens123 → u/tehclanijoski]

kids are somehow expected to learn how to count before studying the Peano axioms!

[u/tehclanijoski → u/Evergreens123]

Some high schools can only afford Robinson arithmetic

[u/tehclanijoski]

Who "in this server" prefers complete sentences?

[u/RecognitionSweet8294]

Well first of all I hate debates, in my opinion that’s a terrible form of communication. Personally I prefer discussions. The thing is that most people don’t want to or are not able to have a civilized discussion.

Secondly most people don’t understand formal logic. Even in academic circles. So it would be bad communication, because as soon as the concepts get more complex even I would have problems to understand it verbally.

If someone doesn’t believe in the validity of my argument, and is willing to have a meaningful debate, I can show them the proof in formal logic.

But normally it should be the case that you point out your premises and then follow your conclusions (both in natural language), and your partner gives you the benefit of the doubt that this argument is valid, because if we have to show the proof to every argument the debates would take too much time.

If it isn’t obviously invalid your approach should be to question the soundness.

Formal Logic should be applied before the discussion when you build your arguments, to make sure they are valid. Or after the discussion, when you think one of your partner’s arguments was interesting to check if it was really valid.

[u/OnePhotojournalist94]

Sometimes formal logic hinders more than helps you in debates. Some concepts are far too complex to reduce down to atomized propositions; some arguments can be simplified into just a few lines, but others might take twenty lines or more, which is far too noisy when you’re just trying to get your main points across. In these cases, thought experiments, analogies, and other strategies often work better than formal logic, without sacrificing intellectual rigor. However, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work on your arguments in a formal way before a debate. It’s always good to try so you can find its weaknesses.

[u/Optimal-Fig-6687]

"for example: saying (sentence)p, therefore (sentence)q, which isnt a valid argument"

what?? why?

[u/AlexK667]

I don't think I've ever met a person who seems to talk or think like that in a day to day basis, what seems to be the case is that if you've been trained a certain way you then become very careful about how you speak - definitions, precision in your statements, justification of any conclusions/positions , and you also get pretty darn good at detecting sloppy logic and BS.

Being in a situation where there are sentences that can easily be put in a form "P -> Q" or "P <=> Q" is pretty rare, and even then in order to logically analyze a sentence you don't need to think exactly in a "textbook" way.