[Hajman]

Really? So it should be but a matter of a moment's notice to show me an example of a major and minor predicate, and the conclusion therefrom derived.

For what? Which one of your arguments requires one? They've mostly been emotional arguments, not logical. Specify an argument, and I'll try to give you a formal (though possibly not syntatically correct) logical argument.

Like biology, logic is largely irrelevant to most moral arguments, it is largely a creature of formal mathematical reasoning, and sees little use outside of circuit design and programming. To the extent that they do at all, people reason in chains of supporting evidence.

Biology needs logic. Are you implying it doesn't? The Logic in question is the way to reason to come up with acceptable arguments that we can know are valid. Without it, we really can't tell if our conclusions are valid. If you come up with a conclusion that doesn't use logic, you're asking to get burned. Any good conclusion has logic behind it. For example, a contradictory conclusion isn't valid, because it breaks certain logical rules. Also, I thought you were trying to get away from moral arguments. If not, you have two primary choices: Morals from God, or morals from man (derived, by necessity, from logic). Either way doesn't hold up your arguments very well. If you're trying to claim that your arguments don't need logic; well, just prepared to lose the argument. I'd rather be logically objective, not emotionally subjective.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Biology needs logic. Are you implying it doesn't?

I looked through my last copy of "Science News", and I find not a single syllogism. If you can point one out to me in any natural science journal, please feel free to do so, since you appear to have declined my suggestion that you supply one from the arguments here.

What most people mean is "sensible" when they say logical, as in this case.