 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009"Logic chopping"
Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was informed, by one Bill Dubuque, that this was an expression peculiar to the philosophers, not in wider circulation. This claim I find doubtful. Is it not rather the case that "logic chopping", in the sense of spurious, needlessly complicated reasoning, of devious logical machinations of not much substance, is a piece of standard English vernacular?  SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus > Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", > expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was informed, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus In computer science we use "short circuit logic" or "the boolean expressions is short circuited". -Ramon >> Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", >> expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In computer science we use "short circuit logic" or "the boolean > expressions is short circuited". That's different, almost the opposite. Short-circuiting is not bothering deciding the truth of questions that can be shown not to matter, while "logic chopping", while "logic chopping" is, as far as I can tell, arguing about things (particularly details) that don't actually matter. One dictionary defines it as The fallacy of using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in a dispute. Harry Gensler, _Historical Dictionary of Logic_, 2006 The fact that I had to look it up to be sure that I understood what it was supposed to mean may give the OP an indication of how much the phrase is (or, in this case, is not) a piece of standard English vernacular. (And that's coming from somebody who took formal logic courses taught by philosophy professors when he was in college.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > The fact that I had to look it up to be sure that I understood what it > was supposed to mean may give the OP an indication of how much the > phrase is (or, in this case, is not) a piece of standard English > vernacular. This is a helpful piece of information. I have in the past remarked of a passage in a paper by Kreisel that it no doubt reflects Kreisel's happy-go-lucky eclectic milksop attitude to foundations [of mathematics] I wonder whether you find this equally obscure? (This remark was tempered by the frank admission I myself find such an attitude most congenial, taking the edge off of "milksop" etc.) SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus >> The fact that I had to look it up to be sure that I understood what >> it was supposed to mean may give the OP an indication of how much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > tempered by the frank admission I myself find such an attitude most > congenial, taking the edge off of "milksop" etc.) Pretty much. I understand "happy-go-lucky" and "eclectic", but "milksop" isn't really in my vocabulary. I'd guess that it would be what I would call "milquetoast", but I don't see how that could fit-- "happy-go-lucky" and "timid" seem almost opposites. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I have in the past remarked of a passage in a paper by Kreisel that >> it no doubt [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what I would call "milquetoast", but I don't see how that could fit-- > "happy-go-lucky" and "timid" seem almost opposites. It makes more sense if you know something about Kreisel. His attitude to foundations is happy-go-lucky in the sense he is -- or, at least, was; what his present procilivities are is anyone's guess -- more concerned with exploring, with whatever mathematical and philosophical tools suggest themselves, this and that foundational notion, conception, problem, without much regard to whether his approach is legitimate or makes sense on this or that foundational stance; it is eclectic in the sense he's been happy to pick things from here and there, not caring much for philosophical orthodoxy; and it's "milksop" in that he has not committed himself, in his foundational studies, to any particular conception of mathematics, any of the "standard" philosophies of mathematics with e.g. their dismissal (as "theological", "meaningless", ...) of various principles and modes of reasoning. He's been sitting on the fence, so to speak, albeit in a very interesting, provocative and insightful way. SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus > The fallacy of using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful > and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >vernacular. (And that's coming from somebody who took formal logic >courses taught by philosophy professors when he was in college.) Thjat's how I understand it. It's in my passive vocabulary, not my active vocabulary. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > > In computer science we use "short circuit logic" or "the boolean > > expressions is short circuited". > That's different, almost the opposite. I would have misinterpreted it the same way. I don't recall ever encountering the expression before. I wouldn't assume that all reasonably literate people have taken freshman philosophy classes. ¬R > . . . Is it not rather the case that "logic chopping", in the sense of > spurious, needlessly complicated reasoning, of devious logical > machinations of not much substance, is a piece of standard English > vernacular? My short-form answer would be yes, it is the case. How many regularly use it I wouldn't want to guess, but I'd be surprised if any large fraction of reasonably literate folk would not comprehend it when they encounter it. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 15 Jul 2009, Eric Walker wrote >> . . . Is it not rather the case that "logic chopping", in the >> sense of spurious, needlessly complicated reasoning, of devious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > surprised if any large fraction of reasonably literate folk > would not comprehend it when they encounter it. Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use amongst a undefined-but-perhaps-sizeable sub-set of another sub-set doesn't sound like "standard English vernacular" to me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] >> How many regularly use it I wouldn't want to guess, but I'd be >> surprised if any large fraction of reasonably literate folk would not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > undefined-but-perhaps-sizeable sub-set of another sub-set doesn't sound > like "standard English vernacular" to me. So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not vernacular? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not > vernacular? Not necessarily "a piece of standard English vernacular", no. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not necessarily "a piece of standard English vernacular", no. Interesting. I am unclear how "standard" and "vernacular" interact there, but in any event, how does one distinguish what most reasonably literate folk readily understand from what is vernacular? My desk dictionary shows five senses for "vernacular" as an adjective. One, discriminating between scientific taxonomy and everyday names, may here be ignored, as may another that has general application beyond language. The other three are: 1. using the native language of a country or place 2. commonly spoken by the people of a particular country or place 3. of or in the native language If most reasonably literate English speakers are conversant with a term, which of the numbered tests does it fail in its application for vernacularity? Clearly, only #3 even comes close to possibly being a bar. It would thus seem that what that "not necessarily" implies is that usage commonly spoken by "most reasonably literate folk" is nontrivially often materially different from commonly spoken by "the people", which is to say that "the people" is a concept materially differing from "most reasonably literate folk". Would that be it? Are "the people" not, all in all, "reasonably literate"? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 16 Jul 2009, Eric Walker wrote >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > reasonably literate folk". Would that be it? Are "the people" > not, all in all, "reasonably literate"? I see "reasonable literacy" and "vernacular usage" as fairly unrelated concepts. The usage of literate people, of course, is not by definition "non-vernacular", but vernacular usage does not require literacy to any level beyond speech. I think that to qualify as "standard English vernacular", a phrase would need to be in common usage by a large proportion of the whole of the native-speaking population, not just a large proportion of the reasonably literate native-speaking population. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > I see "reasonable literacy" and "vernacular usage" as fairly unrelated > concepts. The usage of literate people, of course, is not by definition [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > native-speaking population, not just a large proportion of the > reasonably literate native-speaking population. I suspect that the crux here will be the meaning assigned to "reasonably literate". If, to just take a sample, one consults the Wikipedia article "Literacy" (whither "Literate" redirects), one gets: "In modern contexts, the word refers to reading and writing at a level adequate for communication, or at a level that lets one understand and communicate ideas in a literate society, so as to take part in that society." It continues: "The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has drafted the following definition: "'Literacy' is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." I'll take either as reasonable (they are much alike anyway). So if most folk who fit either or both definitions comprehend a term, how and why is that term not "vernacular" for any of these: 1. using the native language of a country or place 2. commonly spoken by the people of a particular country or place 3. of or in the native language Are we arguing that only a minority, or a very modest majority, of the native-speaker population is either capable of "reading and writing at a level adequate for communication" or has "the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials"? We only ask because we want to know . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not >>> vernacular? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > term, which of the numbered tests does it fail in its application > for vernacularity? #2 > Clearly, only #3 even comes close to possibly > being a bar. It would thus seem that what that "not necessarily" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would that be it? Are "the people" not, all in all, "reasonably > literate"? That depends on your definition of "reasonably literate". The way you've defined (or assumed the definition of) similar terms leads me to believe that for you, the term might encompass as much as, perhaps, a third of the native speakers, but probably a significantly smaller fraction. For most of such a group to "readily understand" something doesn't make it particularly "commonly spoken". If you really meant a much larger fraction of the population, then I'd take issue with your "most". My own feeling is that the vast majority of them have either never encountered the phrase or not worried about the fact that they don't really know what it means the few times they have encountered it. I'd be surprised if one person in a hundred could confidently and appropriately use the phrase "logic chopping" in a sentence and if half that number had ever done so. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not >>>> vernacular? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > appropriately use the phrase "logic chopping" in a sentence and if > half that number had ever done so. I've never heard it before this thread and I have no idea what it might mean, having largely ignored the thread. SignatureDavid > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote, in part: >> [...] I'd be surprised if one person in a hundred could confidently >> and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've never heard it before this thread and I have no idea what it > might mean, having largely ignored the thread. I, too, have largely ignored the thread. (Well, not so much "ignored the thread" as simply failed to read it. "Ignored" has volition involved, where "failed to read" doesn't.) Note: The previous parenthetical comment could actually be an example of "logic shopping," which makes more sense to me as a phrase than "logic chopping" does. SignatureMaria Conlon, Not a logician, just a poster in the crowd, here for the fun of it. > >>>> So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not > >>>> vernacular? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I've never heard it before this thread and I have no idea what it might > mean, having largely ignored the thread. Likewise. Of course, I may not be reasonably literate. I haven't quite worked out Eric's criteria. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider > > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not > vernacular? I dispute the assertion that most reasonably literate folk would readily understand it. Brian SignatureDay 164 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project [...] > I dispute the assertion that most reasonably literate folk would readily > understand it. There, I think, is the crux, and regrettably there are--so far as I know-- no reliable ways to determine an answer. I think that in the end we just have to say we disagree. I will note that my disagreement is not fervid, exactly because it cannot be based on definite information. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There, I think, is the crux, and regrettably there are--so far as I > know-- no reliable ways to determine an answer. There have been a fair number of people on this newsgroup that have expressed unfamiliarity with the phrase. While that doesn't even rise to the level of a straw poll, that should at least indicate some doubt. To me, the phrase sounds like specialty jargon. Brian SignatureDay 165 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > To me, the phrase sounds like specialty jargon. I've never heard of it either. Now, what was the question? Adrian > Eric Walker wrote: >>> I dispute the assertion that most reasonably literate folk would >>> readily understand it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > To me, the phrase sounds like specialty jargon. This thread is where I saw it first. SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/ >>>> I dispute the assertion that most reasonably literate folk would >>>> readily understand it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This thread is where I saw it first. New to me, also, but I like the sound of it. What does it mean, again? SignatureFrank ess >> > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider >> > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I dispute the assertion that most reasonably literate folk would >readily understand it. Leaving aside the vernacularity, or not, of literacy, am I the only one surprised at the number of people to whom the phrase wasn't already familiar? I can't remember when I first met it, or indeed where (though I assume in a book rather than in conversation), but it must have been during childhood or not long after. Is this, perhaps, generational? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider >>> > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >must have been during childhood or not long after. Is this, perhaps, >generational? Possibly. I have met the phrase but never used it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >>> > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider > >>> > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Possibly. I have met the phrase but never used it. Perhaps you never met a logic chopper? Jan >>>> > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider >>>> > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Possibly. I have met the phrase but never used it. Likewise. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > >>>> > Hmm. My feelinig is that to be "vernacular" it needs wider > >>>> > distribution than that. A phrase with perhaps restricted use [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Likewise. I met it so long ago that I can't remember where or when. I think it was in connection with the medieval scholastics, who were supposed to be doing it all the time, Jan Signature"Galileo wrote to Kepler wishing they could have a good laugh together at the stupidity of 'the mob'; the rest of his letter makes it plain that 'the mob' consisted of the professors of philosophy, who tried to conjure away Jupiter's moons, using 'logic-chopping arguments as though they were magical incantations'." (Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy) > Leaving aside the vernacularity, or not, of literacy, am I the only > one surprised at the number of people to whom the phrase wasn't > already familiar? I can't remember when I first met it, or indeed > where (though I assume in a book rather than in conversation), but it > must have been during childhood or not long after. Is this, perhaps, > generational? I don't know that I'd ever heard this particular formulation, "logic chopping", before this thread. I had heard "chopping logic", not often and I don't know where, as a criticism of someone's style of argument. "You're just chopping logic." In which case the context makes it pretty clear what it means. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > >> So what most reasonably literate folk readily understand is not > >> vernacular? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one surprised at the number of people to whom the phrase wasn't > already familiar? Well, as I'm one of the ones that never heard of it before, no I'm not surprised. Brian SignatureDay 165 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project > Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", > expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > logical machinations of not much substance, is a piece of standard > English vernacular? I would place the expression somewhere in between. Yes, it is philosophers' jargon. It is known somewhat beyond those circles, but by nowhere near a majority of the population. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", > expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was informed, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > needlessly complicated reasoning, of devious logical machinations of not > much substance, is a piece of standard English vernacular? I'm pretty sure I learned it from science fiction. Google Books finds it in an Asimov book I've read. http://books.google.com/books?id=EkhaAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22science+fiction%22+%22logic+ chopping%22&lr=&ei=JgZhSoCQBo-UzASvzKjcDw (snippet view) So it's not peculiar to the philosophers. I wouldn't expect the average English speaker to know it, but I would expect that person to figure it out in a helpful context, such as "That's just logic chopping." I took a class in mathematical logic in college, and don't recall hearing the phrase there (like Evan, only less). In fact, I don't recall the professor saying anything about the use and misuse of logic. -- Jerry Friedman > > Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", > > expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was informed, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > (snippet view) A book I read long before I read /Romeo and Juliet/, Act III, Scene 5. "How now! How now, chop-logic!" The commentators say "chop" means "barter". -- Jerry Friedman [...] > So it's not peculiar to the philosophers. I suspect it never had anything to do with philosophy, save perhaps in a popularized idea of what philosophy consists in. The OED says of this sense of "chop": To exchange or bandy words; esp. in 'To chop logic': to exchange logical arguments and terms, bandy logic, reason argumentatively, argue. It further adds: (In late use, often erroneously referred to 'Chop' sense 1, as if 'to mince', divide minutely, 'split hairs', or 'hash up'.) The connotation seems to be attempted obfuscation by niggling disputation. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", >> expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > recall the professor saying anything about the use and misuse of > logic. If I've ever heard the term I don't recall it. I've taken courses in logic (Philosophy), majored in mathematics, enjoyed science fiction since I could read, worked in IT in a wide range of capacities and it's not even immediately obvious to me what it means, without context. But perhaps the problem does lie with my level of literacy... >>> Some time ago, in sci.math, I used the expression "logic chopping", >>> expecting it would be understood by any native speaker. I was [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >immediately obvious to me what it means, without context. But perhaps the >problem does lie with my level of literacy... I doubt it. Here are a couple of URLs. One person's definition on a translation site: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/philosophy/2458817-logic_chopping.html logic-chopping English translation: bandying words, taking logical arguments to ridiculous extremes and: Logic-chopping = to bandy words; to altercate. "Chop-logic" is dialectic banter in which confinement to particular meanings of words leads to ludicrousness. ... http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/logic+chopping Moby Thesaurus words for "logic chopping": bickering, boggling, captious, captiousness, caviling, chicane, chicanery, choplogic, dodging, equivocation, equivocatory, evasion, evasive, fencing, hairsplitting, hedging, nit-picking, paltering, parrying, pettifoggery, petty, picayune, prevarication, pussyfooting, quibbling, shifting, shuffling, sidestepping, subterfuge, tergiversation, trichoschistic, trichoschistism, trifling, trivial SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.