It's the woke generation that spends all their time texting and accomplishing nothing that always seems to find a way to destroy the English language by inventing words to fit their agenda that day. Traditional words have either been abbreviated or changed in a way to make it easier to text them and it's ruining communication in this country.
But, I guess you are perfectly fine with college students that can't even construct a complete sentence because of all the illiterate, nonsensical jargon being called "words" these days, much like the word "adulting". I guess people are too lazy to simply say "act like an adult" anymore, you have to use an abbreviated form of it.
That's what I mean by "woke opinion"; it's woke democrats that explicitly and/or implicitly make the case that the current English language is "too difficult" to apply--i.e., it's too hard to use these old outdated words so let's make up a bunch of crap that makes no sense, then get places like Merriam-Webster to legitimize it.
@vtgrad2003 I gave up on college students in the early 90's while trying to explain; If A then B, Not B, Therefore Not A.
One example; If it's raining then the street is wet, The street is not wet, Therefore it is not raining.
And if you really wanted to confuse the "slept" teach that "If A then B" is equivalent to "Not A or B" or the mathematical/computer science equivalent -(A & -B).
I went back to the business world and opened a Wholesale/Retail Martial Arts supply and cutlery shop.
Grammar, the first of the three components of the trivium, is the
study of the structure of language and how language is expressed in
writing and speech. Rhetoric, the last part of the trivium, is the study of the rules of persuasion, as well as their written and spoken use. Logic fits in between these two, and is the study of the structure of thought and how thought is expressed in words.
Modern logic, on the other hand, is largely mathematical. A course in
modern logic would begin with the study of
arguments as they are used in everyday language, but quickly descend
into the study of how to manipulate variable symbols. However, since
words are not variable symbols like those studied in modern logic (which
can stand for anything), but rather signs that each have a particular
signification, modern logic has limited use when it comes to the study
of language. It is simply not the kind of logic used in linguistic
reasoning.
Traditional logic is studied because traditional logic is an intrinsic part of language study.
What does logic consist of?
The older system of traditional logic recognized two branches of logic: formal logic (like that covered in our Traditional Logic program), and informal or material logic (like that covered in our Material Logic program).
Formal logic
focuses on the procedural aspect of reasoning, its mechanics—how we
properly get from two premises or assumptions to a conclusion. Material logic
focuses on the philosophical or metaphysical aspects of words,
statements, and arguments that can affect our ability to arrive at
truth.
Even many classical educators are simply not aware that there is any
other aspect to logic than the formal aspect. One of the reasons for
this lack of awareness is that modern logic, which largely displaced
traditional logic in colleges and universities in the twentieth century,
only recognizes the formal aspect of logic, since it is based on
anti-metaphysical assumptions that conflict with the traditional
metaphysics treated in material logic.
The traditional system of logic recognizes that logic is larger than
just form, or structure, and that the content can and does affect the
process of reasoning from premises to conclusion.
But if this is all true, then what do we do with fallacies, the teaching of which has become so common in classical education
circles? We need to recognize, first, that there are both formal and
informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are those that result from the
violation of the formal rules of reasoning, those studied in formal
logic. These are covered in a formal logic course. But informal
fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that result from mistakes in the material or content of reasoning and from certain psychological mistakes.
If we were to draw an analogy with a cooking recipe, we would say
that several things could go wrong: First, we could make mistakes in the
procedural aspect of cooking—mixing the ingredients improperly, or
cooking them too long, etc. This is a formal mistake, like
putting one of our terms in the wrong place in a statement or putting
our statement in the wrong place in our argument.
Or we could have the wrong ingredient, or one that has gone bad. This is an informalmaterial mistake, like including a false premise in our argument.
Or we could have our attention diverted from the process entirely, by
getting a phone call in the middle of cooking, or having to deal with a
child who skinned his knee. This is an informalpsychological mistake, like having our attention diverted from proper reasoning by the latest survey, or news story, or emotional appeal.
Formal fallacies are covered in a formal logic program. Informal material fallacies are largely covered in material logic. Informal psychological fallacies largely fall into the domain of rhetoric.
Logic vs. Critical Thinking Skills
While many people use the word “logic” in a too‑restricted sense in
referring only to formal logic, many others associate it with any kind
of abstract thinking. This also is a mistake, although a mistake in the
opposite direction. The origin of this error lies in the contemporary
emphasis on “critical thinking skills.” Although all logic is a part of
critical thinking skills, all critical thinking skills are not a part of
logic. The various discrete thinking processes studied in such
“critical thinking skills” programs commonly cover spatial and figural
skills and mathematical reasoning, as well as reading, writing, and
vocabulary skills. Once again, these skills are not without value, but
it would be a mistake to confuse them with logic itself. One striking
fact about such programs is that they seem comprehensive but include
almost nothing that is covered in traditional discussions of either
formal or material logic.
These are the three major misunderstandings in the thinking about
logic. If we could better understand logic, we would know why it is so
important to study.
@mapletop Interesting treatise! I took a look at some of the material in his text book and it's not something I'd be comfortable presenting to 7+ grade students.
I think that grandparents have shared that sentiment for decades if not centuries. Think about parents and grandparents and what they thought of the future back in during the Great Depression and late 1930s.
Warning: These views are the opinion of myself and are probably not PC.
Letting that, or any, he/she compete in a women’s league does not make sense. I say they need to test DNA (I’m not a genetics expert, but I don’t think DNA can be “cheated”…unless it is not actually that specific persons…such as substituting someone else’s in place of) to prove male or female and then compete accordingly. Women’s sports were created specifically to level the playing field, now they are letting “was-men” to compete as a woman? WTH? They might as well combine all sports to men/women/whatever? and let whomever rise to the top in their chosen endeavor.
@opipeman Yes. The country was more religious and families were more likely to have two parents in the home. Of course they were more concerned with nuclear bombs, rock and roll and girls wearing skirts at the knee than what sexual organ was under the skirt.
The psychopath left liberal nut jobs are hell bent on selling an idea that men are equal to women in all ways. How the f@#$ can anyone even consider believing that when just by visual appearance alone we are NOT the same! There are far more differences in how we are not the same. But than again, I'm not a biologist 🤣
You need some rain? SE Louisiana has been under severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings for the past 60 minutes. One tornado reported about 10 miles north of me. A waterspout about 5 miles NE of me. A second tornado about 5 miles south.
One weather reporting station has reported 7 inches of rain in 90 minutes.
@PappyJoe Yes, we could use some rain, hail, sleet, snow….anything. It was dry and hot as hell last year, I think it will be even worse this year. Do you think you can get some of your extra water trucked up here😬. I guess for the price of fuel, we could probably make our own water🤔
@opipeman They did. The National Weather Service sent teams out this morning to check on damage. The only one to touch down was the one 10 miles north of me. The one south of me showed up on the radar but didn't touch down.
Well here's to a North Carolina win, and while considering their mascot, if they don't win, do they take up goat yoga? It's really a thing, just saying:}
Comments
I gave up on college students in the early 90's while trying to explain;
If A then B,
Not B,
Therefore Not A.
One example;
If it's raining then the street is wet,
The street is not wet,
Therefore it is not raining.
And if you really wanted to confuse the "slept" teach that "If A then B" is equivalent to "Not A or B" or the mathematical/computer science equivalent -(A & -B).
I went back to the business world and opened a Wholesale/Retail Martial Arts supply and cutlery shop.
An interesting take by Martin Cothran
The Place of Logic in the Classical Curriculum
Grammar, the first of the three components of the trivium, is the study of the structure of language and how language is expressed in writing and speech. Rhetoric, the last part of the trivium, is the study of the rules of persuasion, as well as their written and spoken use. Logic fits in between these two, and is the study of the structure of thought and how thought is expressed in words.
Modern logic, on the other hand, is largely mathematical. A course in modern logic would begin with the study of arguments as they are used in everyday language, but quickly descend into the study of how to manipulate variable symbols. However, since words are not variable symbols like those studied in modern logic (which can stand for anything), but rather signs that each have a particular signification, modern logic has limited use when it comes to the study of language. It is simply not the kind of logic used in linguistic reasoning.
Traditional logic is studied because traditional logic is an intrinsic part of language study.
What does logic consist of?
The older system of traditional logic recognized two branches of logic: formal logic (like that covered in our Traditional Logic program), and informal or material logic (like that covered in our Material Logic program).
Formal logic focuses on the procedural aspect of reasoning, its mechanics—how we properly get from two premises or assumptions to a conclusion. Material logic focuses on the philosophical or metaphysical aspects of words, statements, and arguments that can affect our ability to arrive at truth.
Even many classical educators are simply not aware that there is any other aspect to logic than the formal aspect. One of the reasons for this lack of awareness is that modern logic, which largely displaced traditional logic in colleges and universities in the twentieth century, only recognizes the formal aspect of logic, since it is based on anti-metaphysical assumptions that conflict with the traditional metaphysics treated in material logic.
The traditional system of logic recognizes that logic is larger than just form, or structure, and that the content can and does affect the process of reasoning from premises to conclusion.
But if this is all true, then what do we do with fallacies, the teaching of which has become so common in classical education circles? We need to recognize, first, that there are both formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are those that result from the violation of the formal rules of reasoning, those studied in formal logic. These are covered in a formal logic course. But informal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that result from mistakes in the material or content of reasoning and from certain psychological mistakes.
If we were to draw an analogy with a cooking recipe, we would say that several things could go wrong: First, we could make mistakes in the procedural aspect of cooking—mixing the ingredients improperly, or cooking them too long, etc. This is a formal mistake, like putting one of our terms in the wrong place in a statement or putting our statement in the wrong place in our argument.
Or we could have the wrong ingredient, or one that has gone bad. This is an informal material mistake, like including a false premise in our argument.
Or we could have our attention diverted from the process entirely, by getting a phone call in the middle of cooking, or having to deal with a child who skinned his knee. This is an informal psychological mistake, like having our attention diverted from proper reasoning by the latest survey, or news story, or emotional appeal.
Formal fallacies are covered in a formal logic program. Informal material fallacies are largely covered in material logic. Informal psychological fallacies largely fall into the domain of rhetoric.
Logic vs. Critical Thinking Skills
While many people use the word “logic” in a too‑restricted sense in referring only to formal logic, many others associate it with any kind of abstract thinking. This also is a mistake, although a mistake in the opposite direction. The origin of this error lies in the contemporary emphasis on “critical thinking skills.” Although all logic is a part of critical thinking skills, all critical thinking skills are not a part of logic. The various discrete thinking processes studied in such “critical thinking skills” programs commonly cover spatial and figural skills and mathematical reasoning, as well as reading, writing, and vocabulary skills. Once again, these skills are not without value, but it would be a mistake to confuse them with logic itself. One striking fact about such programs is that they seem comprehensive but include almost nothing that is covered in traditional discussions of either formal or material logic.
These are the three major misunderstandings in the thinking about logic. If we could better understand logic, we would know why it is so important to study.
Interesting treatise! I took a look at some of the material in his text book and it's not something I'd be comfortable presenting to 7+ grade students.
No shit. How does one even date in highschool now? OMG I can't even....
This is definitely NOT my world.
Who the Hell's world is it? I almost cry at the thought that my granddaughters have to grow up in a world made of shit.
I think that grandparents have shared that sentiment for decades if not centuries. Think about parents and grandparents and what they thought of the future back in during the Great Depression and late 1930s.
Letting that, or any, he/she compete in a women’s league does not make sense. I say they need to test DNA (I’m not a genetics expert, but I don’t think DNA can be “cheated”…unless it is not actually that specific persons…such as substituting someone else’s in place of) to prove male or female and then compete accordingly. Women’s sports were created specifically to level the playing field, now they are letting “was-men” to compete as a woman? WTH? They might as well combine all sports to men/women/whatever? and let whomever rise to the top in their chosen endeavor.
I guess you have a point, but back then most of the country had faith and families were at the center of their lives.
Yes. The country was more religious and families were more likely to have two parents in the home.
Of course they were more concerned with nuclear bombs, rock and roll and girls wearing skirts at the knee than what sexual organ was under the skirt.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60935226
Yes, we could use some rain, hail, sleet, snow….anything. It was dry and hot as hell last year, I think it will be even worse this year. Do you think you can get some of your extra water trucked up here😬. I guess for the price of fuel, we could probably make our own water🤔
Nevermind the leftist environmental wackos wouldn't let us do that.
I agree, what a great job it would be! 🍺
Hope the twisters shy away from you and yours, Brother!
They did.
The National Weather Service sent teams out this morning to check on damage. The only one to touch down was the one 10 miles north of me. The one south of me showed up on the radar but didn't touch down.
Glad you are safe, Brother!
The Democrat logo. The one thing they did right.
https://stuartreviewsstuff.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/the-14-types-of-people-you-see-on-internet-forums/