The standard norms of logical discourse

If you feel that your question or comment doesn't fit into the categories above, feel free to post it here.
Post Reply

The standard norms of logical discourse

Post by Archived Topic » Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:03 am

What are they, where do you find them?

Submitted by dale hileman (Apple Valley, CA - U.S.A.)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Topic imported and archived

The standard norms of logical discourse

Post by Archived Reply » Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:17 am

Dale, I think that one of the purposes of all those years of education we have pumped into us was to learn the answer to this question. That's what people were supposed to be learning in all those English, history, math, science, etc. courses that they took for all those years. Such activities as writing an essay with a logical beginning middle and end, giving an oral report, participating in a debate, using the scientific method, and proving things in math courses should have been teaching folks what logical discourse is about.

Following the rules of ?logic? would be a good start. You know all that stuff, such as if a = b and b=c than a =c, and if p implies q, then not q implies not p, etc. If folks can't agree on such fundamental things then it's hard to carry on a sensible conversation or intelligently discuss and argue points.

_Coherence_ is also a vital part of logical discourse. When something is said, it seems that there should be a point to it, perhaps it should be the answer to a question, it should be leading somewhere, it should bear some direct relationship to the topic at hand. I would not consider as part of logical discourse random streams of consciousness, or blobs of information blurted out which have not apparent bearing or relationship to anything, and which might mean something to the speaker, but which have no structure, apparent relevance, or meaning to the listener. Tea leaves and pigeon guts may be good tools for soothsayers, and non sequiturs may been fine for getting Gracie Allen a laugh but they are not very good bases for logical discourse. Capeesh?

Ken G, October 30, 2004



Reply from Ken Greenwald (Fort Collins, CO - U.S.A.)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

The standard norms of logical discourse

Post by Archived Reply » Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:32 am

Which basically comes down to the application of mental self-discipline. Even though deep down many of us may be mad -- don't ask, don't tell! -- we have to be mad in a methodical manner, or else the game is up. Capisci?
Reply from Erik Kowal ( - England)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Reply imported and archived

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply