I appreciate the fact that you took some time to do research, but I disagree with your conclusions, it has nothing to do with the vocabulary. Let me make it even more simple than Wikipedia made it. Formal logic is deductive, and informal logic is inductive. If you can prove the premises in formal logic, then the conclusion is indisputable. On the other hand, informal logic is inherently uncertain.
Here's an example of formal logic (you know this one):
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal
If you prove 1 and 2, 3 follows automatically.
Here's an example of informal logic:
We were told that we went to Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Therefore, our government lied to us.
You can see what's going on here. Even if you do prove that points 1 and 2 are true, point 3 doesn't follow automatically, as it would if we were utilizing formal logic. Formal logic is seldom used, because it's impractical.
>> I appreciate the fact that you took some time to do research, but I disagree with
>>your conclusions, it has nothing to do with the vocabulary.
Words mean things, so vocabulary is indeed important.
“If you can’t say what you mean, you can’t mean what you say” – The Last emperor
>> Formal logic is deductive, and informal logic is inductive.
I see nothing about inductive and deductive reasoning in the definition of Logic ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Logic )
>> If you can prove the premises in formal logic, then the conclusion is indisputable.
That is in the definition of “Logic”
>> On the other hand, informal logic is inherently uncertain.
Uncertain Logic is not Logic; it is Illogic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogic )
>> Here's an example of formal logic (you know this one):
>>
>>All men are mortal
>>Socrates is a man
>>Socrates is mortal
That’s a Syllogism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=syllogism )
>> Here's an example of informal logic:
>>
>>We were told that we went to Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction.
>>There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>Therefore, our government lied to us.
Actually this is an example of illogic. Here is an example of logic
1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; they used them on the Kurds.
2. Iraq’s dictator refused to prove they had been destroyed.
3. Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.
How about this?
1. We have found tons of Weapons of mass destruction in scattered locations in small quantities.
2. The Main Stream Media (MSM) knows this.
3. The MSM Lied to us.
>> You can see what's going on here.
Yes, I can.
>>Even if you do prove that points 1 and 2 are true, point 3 doesn't follow automatically,
>>as it would if we were utilizing formal logic.
So, it’s useless?
>>Formal logic is seldom used, because it's impractical.
If I were to program using informal logic, I would be unemployed. (grin) Formal logic is not only practical, it’s what all the conveniences you take for granted are based on (or else you would never know if the light was going to come on when you flipped the switch) Logic is what makes the real world run regardless of what you may believe.
Logic Is.
Truth Is.
Reality Is.
You perception may vary.