A Quote by David Berlinski on inference, syllogism, language, symbol, logic, and insight

Within the categorical syllogism, ordinary language represents the ordinary flow of inference. Two premises are given; there is a plash of insight, and one step undertaken. The mind hops right along, not quite knowing where it is going but getting there nonetheless. On the right, a checklist does its work. The logician's clamp retains its force of old, but the inferential steps involve no more than the substitution of symbols for symbols, with the anchor of inference embedded in identities. Inference now proceeds from one identity to the next; no plash of insight is involved, only the solid satisfying ratcheting sound of symbols being substituted for symbols.

David Berlinski

Source: The Advent of the Algorithm: The 300-Year Journey from an Idea to the Computer, Pages: 10

Contributed by: Chris

A Quote by Galileo Galilei on logic, mathematics, god, language, and universe

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.

Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

Contributed by: talesh

A Quote by Maxine Hong Kingston on change, women, character, learning, logic, words, truth, and manifestation

Be careful what you say. It comes true. It comes true. I had to leave home in order to see the world logically, logic the new way of seeing. I learned to think that mysteries are for explanation. I enjoy the simplicity. Concrete pours out of my mouth to cover the forests with freeways and sidewalks. Give me plastics, periodical tables, TV dinners with vegetables no more complex than peas mixed with diced carrots. Shine floodlights into dark corners: no ghosts.

Maxine Hong Kingston

Contributed by: Katie

A Quote by Jane Roberts on jane roberts, seth, cause and effect, magical thinking, intuition, and logic

SETH said:  Logic deals with exterior conditions, with cause and effect relationships.  Intuitions deal with immediate experience of the most intimate nature, with subjective motions and activities that in your terms move far quicker than the speed of light, and with simultaneous events that your cause and effect level is far too slow to perceive.

Jane Roberts

Source: The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events (A Seth Book), Pages: 42

Contributed by: HeyOK

A Quote by Rolf Jensen on future, futureology, dreams, dream society, logic, and certainties

"If we limit ourselves to thinking in terms of realities, facts, and knowledge, we have got the future all wrong because it is made, not of certainties, but of dreams. The future does not exist in the physical world but is present in our thoughts and dreams only....Far too many companies search for the future in the rear-view mirror, because that is where certainties are found. There we find the part of reality that can be verified. The strict scientific model of logic is a trap that prevents us from looking ahead."

Rolf Jensen

Source: The Dream Society: How the Coming Shift from Information to Imagination Will Transform Your Business, Pages: 24

Contributed by: alina

A Quote by Scott Berkun on intelligence, logic, argument, and self-deception

The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent’s friends) they’ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly attended funerals, whose headstones say “Well, at least I was right.”)

Until they come face to face with someone who is tenacious enough to dissect their logic, and resilient enough to endure the thinly veiled intellectual abuse they dish out during debate (e.g. “You don’t really think that do you?” or “Well if you knew the <insert obscure reference here> rule/law/corollary you wouldn’t say such things”), they’re never forced to question their ability to defend bad ideas. Opportunities for this are rare: a new boss, a new co-worker, a new spouse. But if their obsessiveness about being right is strong enough, they’ll reject those people out of hand before they question their own biases and self-manipulations. It can be easier for smart people who have a habit of defending bad ideas to change jobs, spouses, or cities rather than honestly examine what is at the core of their psyche (and often, their misery).

Scott Berkun

Source: Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas: http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm

Contributed by: Ryan

A Quote by Galileo Galilei on logic, questions, and science

In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

Contributed by: Dawn

A Quote by Jimmy Carter on peace, weapons, champion, logic, and jimmy carter

“We cannot be both the world's leading champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war”

Jimmy Carter (1924 -)

Source: Thinkexist.com

Contributed by: Zoe

A Quote by Russell Targ on nagarjuna, buddha, buddhism, logic, aristotelian logic, middle path, four-valued logic, two-valued logic, and paradox

I believe that we are neither a "self" nor "not a self," but that we are awareness residing as a body. This is the sort of apparent paradox about who we are that may not be solvable within the framework of what we call "Aristotelian two-valued logic" -- the logic system basic to all of Western analytical thought. In the two-valued logic, we frame our reality with questions like "Are we mortal or immortal?" "Is the mind or soul part of the body?" or "Is light made of waves or particles?" But none of these have "yes" or "no" answers. The exclusion of a middle ground between the poles of Aristotelian logic is the source of much confusion. Other logic systems have been suggested in Buddhist writings; the great second-century dharma master and teacher Nagarjuna introduced a four-valued logic system in which statements about the world can be (1) true, (2) not true, (3) both true and not true, (4) neither true nor not true -- which Nagarjuna believed was the usual case -- thereby illumination what is known as the Buddhist Middle Path. According to Nagarjuna, the Buddha first taught that the world is real. He next taught that it is unreal. To the more astute students, he taught that it is both real and not real. And to those who were furthest along the path, he taught that the world is neither real nor not real, which is what we would say today.

Russell Targ

Source: Limitless Mind: A Guide to Remote Viewing and Transformation of Consciousness, Pages: 19-20

Contributed by: ~C4Chaos

A Quote by Jamie Whyte on logic, opinion, and rights

. . . The slogan "You are entitled to your opinion" is so often repeated that is near impossible for the brain of a modern Westerner not to have absorbed it.

Like many other views that have at times enjoyed universal assent, however, it isn't true. You don't really have the right to your own opinions. And the idea that you do, beside being false, is forever being invoked when it would be irrelevant even if it were true.

Jamie Whyte

Source: Crimes Against Logic, Pages: 2

Contributed by: Joshua

Syndicate content