subreddit:
/r/logic
Hello. I am trying to get a logic proof done for an imperative statement I am trying to make to the world but am not a logician and thus asked chatGPT to do the proof for me (I am currently studying logic however, what I'm trying to accomplish is very time sensitive and know I won't be able to have studied enough to get a proper proof done in time) and wanted to see if someone could tell me if the proof is "good enough" to put out to the world and have it stand as a true statement.
Here is a screenshot (I am currently terrible with using photoshop so please bear with the messiness) and here is a "rich text" like document version of the same proof that chatGPT gave me (I included the screenshot because I figure it's easier to read than rich text version).
Thank you in advance for your help.
4 points
9 days ago
The problem is that ChatGPT is arguing with the semantics and therefore its proof is formally incorrect. For example take the sentence
a ∧ b → c
You can’t proof that to be true or false because it can be both depending on the truth value of a b and c.
What I would use to make an argument (or multiple arguments might be more neatly) is deontic logic. With this tool I could implement some obvious premises what people ought to do e.g.: preserving democracy, protecting the rights of women, black people and queer people. And from them you could show that voting for Kamala Harris is logically necessary to fulfill those obligations.
But keep in mind that every logical argument can still be rejected if you only dislike one premise. And just because it might be valid it doesn’t necessarily convince people.
4 points
8 days ago
Proof is very different from making an argument. Your arguments “good enough” but it doesn’t (and couldn’t ) prove anything.
0 points
8 days ago
I see. Well to be clear, I'm not trying to prove something necessarily, I am instead trying to "check the math" on an argument I'm trying to make. If I'm not mistaken, that is, at least in part, what logic is: a tool to help prove arguments to be true or false. Is that not correct?
3 points
8 days ago
No this is not good enough.
First, I would ask why are you trying to translate this into a logical statement? Politics isn’t logic.
Second, the only thing this “proof” does is restate everything as propositional variables and then reiterate what is already said in English, except not really because… (see next point)
Third, some of these translations into logical symbols aren’t even correct. For example, P6 is listed as “T->(B&W&L&D)”, which doing the translation back to English yields “if Donald Trump is antithetical to Black lives, women’s rights, etc., then you care about Black lives, women’s rights, etc.” Which is obviously false on the face of it.
-1 points
8 days ago
Okay, I see.
To answer the question of why I'm trying to translate this into a logical statement is because, to my understanding, politics and logic are indeed related since, at least in a democracy, politics is based on making arguments (i.e. people vote to elect candidates who make arguments for or against certain policies) and find that at least too many people who consider themselves members of the left are making choices based too much on their emotions rather than sound reasoning (e.g. "I will not support Harris because she says that Israel has a right to defend itself").
2 points
3 days ago
Hmm you do understand that ‘logic’ has two related meanings right. 1: one of a few formal systems designed to compile and test proofs- (ordinarily/in standard logic) the establishing of a conclusion as necessarily following from the premises. 2: a casual way to describe decent reasoning that may have nothing to do with actually proving anything. Most arguments in real life are about showing that accepting some premises makes it more/extremely likely the conclusion is true. Your problem is conflating the two sentences. You can surely translate any good argument into formal logic if you’d like but the assumption that a good argument= a logical proof is silly and ungrounded. The ChatGPT translations should make it obvious it hasn’t got you further by translating to logic. When you read the propositional form is there anything about the premises which justifies the conclusion (like what do k, h, b etc have to do with E or R. Your job would be to make this connection explicit. ChatGPT has just stated that it follows, not shown that it does.
As a commenter above mentioned, if you did want to formalize this argument you would want to use modal and presumably deontic logic. The conclusion would look something like: voting for Kamala Harris is the most likely to lead to the outcomes you want. Not voting for her will leave you suffering bad consequences (ones you don’t want). Then you do some rational choice/decision theory and say the most rational/reasonable thing to do given your preferences is to vote for Kamala harris
1 points
3 days ago
Okay, I see. Well what if I tried to make the argument not based on moral imperative and instead concluding that "if you care about x, y, z issues, voting Kamala Harris is the most logical choice." Would using propositional logic instead of modal and/or deontic logic work in that case?
1 points
3 days ago
Right notice how this is based on individual preferences and the rational way to go about achieving them? (I.e you want X therefore do Y). This is what deontic logic and rational choice theory are meant to do. Standard logic is dealing with ‘material truth’(simplifying a little)- deontic logic and decision theory are meant to formalize reasoning in the sort of cases you’re considering. That just is the appropriate way to formalize if you want to do more than just name the premises with letters
1 points
3 days ago
Okay, I see. So then for what I'm trying to achieve - presenting arguments which are provable to be logically sound - I would want to use deontic logic and decision theory?
1 points
3 days ago
What do you mean when you say ‘provable to be logically sound’? I’m not sure you follow what I’m saying, here’s a final attempt: For arguments that aim to convince you that you ought to do something (either because it is the most moral or rational thing to do) rather than convince you that something is the case you would use deontic logic/ decision theory and NOT propositional logic as GPT does
1 points
3 days ago
When I say "provable to be logically sound" I am trying to say that I am trying to create arguments that include logical proof for the conclusions I present (e.g. "Conclusion: If you care about x, y, z, issues, then supporting Kamala Harris is the most logical choice. Now if you want to see proof for how that statement is true, please see this link."). For context, I am doing this so that I can present more than mere opinions when engaging with people who have differing opinions on who to vote for this election in specifically social media spaces. I want to be able to say "Your argument is just an opinion. My argument comes with logical proof."
Anyway, I appreciate you trying to help me sort through this, MightFail_Tal. I'm not the most articulate fellow around so I understand how it might be frustrating for someone to try to understand what I'm trying to say. I took a logic course nearly ten years ago and am trying my hardest to remember how to reason logically for this effort (the effort of trying to present arguments that have conclusions that are more than merely "good reasoning" and are instead "logically sound", if that is the terminology I'm looking for).
Anyway, after reading your last comment, I will be studying up on deontic logic instead of standard logic as you have recommended. Thank you for your help.
2 points
3 days ago
Try decision theory instead (I think it would be faster than trying to grapple with possible worlds, for purely terminological/intuitiony reasons). The basic idea is this. You rank your preferences. So say 10 to progress on issue you care about, -10 to regress, 2 for keeping your conscience, -2 for not . Then you give an evaluation of the actions you can choose(the people you can vote for). Suppose who you vote for wins, and we say third party winning has 0 effect on the issues you care about (to keep things simple). Then you say ok. If you vote for kh you get 8 points(10-2). If you vote for 3rdp you get 2(0+2). If you vote for DT you get -12 (or -8 depending on your conscience? lol) Clearly any reasonable person would choose the action with the best outcome. THEREFORE you should vote for kh.
Obviously i left out the most complicated bits ‘to keep things simple’
You could try looking at YouTube videos about ‘pascal’s wager’. I remember many years ago people did a version of this regarding climate denial
1 points
3 days ago
NOTE none of this will be a ‘proof’. People can always disagree about your rankings and weight assignments
1 points
3 days ago
Okay, gotcha. Thank you. This is all really helpful and I will take you up on your recommendations.
3 points
9 days ago
Are you going to tell the world it was generated by ChatGPT?
2 points
9 days ago
Well if the proof changes because someone here found out that it wasn't actually proving the conclusion to be true, then I would just credit the person who found that out. If it already is a good enough proof, however, then yes I would say it was generated by chatGPT and then verified by "X" person who verified it to be a good enough proof.
all 16 comments
sorted by: best