High level philosophy

[Cod]

Your argument fell at the bunny went into bushes part... It's a well known fact that bunnies hide underground.

[vulcanlogician]

Lol. I edited the post to put the bunny argument at the bottom. (It was out of place where it was.) So really you're saying the argument fell way earlier.

[Joods]

Dammit. I'm only a 15th level Tiefling with sorcery abilities. And I have red draconic bloodlines.

Guess I'm out.

[robvalue]

[DLJ]

Okay. I don't know if I'm high level or not, 
...

I suspect that you are.  

...
I'm working on a new argument which concludes that logic is a subjective thing.
...

Good choice for this thread.  

...
1. I don't know French. I speak common, thieves cant, halfling, and elvish.
...

I have a smattering of French.  After years of study I am fluent in the languages of the people of Gibber and Rubb.

...
2. Logic has evolved. It hasn't been intelligently designed.
...

I suspect that 'artificial selection' has been at play with numerous attempts at cross-pollination.

...
3. Logic is a "value stream." (It values conclusions that follow over those that don't.)
...

Nope.  Logic is a 'thinking tool' and would thus belong to the category of 'information / technology'.

A 'value stream' is a series of steps undertaken to create and deliver value to stakeholders and includes the activities, workflows, controls and procedures needed to achieve agreed goals.  It will utilise information / technology, e.g. logic, to get there.

...
4. There is no "out there" yard stick for measuring accurate logic (god or other).
...

Yes.  'Accuracy' is an intrinsic quality criteria so it only requires internal consistency.

...
5. There is no non-human representation of logical/illogical.
...

Correct... that we know of.

Vulcans notwithstanding.

...
6. Logic requires a social context.
...

It doesn't.

...
For example, the Kalam argument represents perfect logic to some theists.
...

I know, right?  

...
Therefore we shouldn't call the Kalam argument out for faultiness because it depends on one's cultural/social context whether it works or not.
...

It doesn't ... so, non sequitur.

...
7. Logic is not a simplex system... it is duplex (and perhaps multiplex?) in that there are three pathways:
a) Sense data to premises.
b) Premises to conclusion.
c) And then reasoning is involved somewhere in there too. That's pretty complex. If it's complicated, it must be subjective. I don't think anyone disputes this.
...

I dispute it.  You've described a simplex system... it's mono-directional.  You can't automatically get to the premises from the conclusion. It's much harder to get an 'if' from a 'then' than it is to get a 'then' from an 'if'.

Note to Rob:  Given the equivocation issues in other threads, I'll be interpreting 'objective' and 'subjective' as 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' respectively in this thread.  Let me know if you're OK with that.  

...
8. People always call logical fallacies out merely to dismiss others' opinions when they disagree.
...

I don't know about 'always' but yes, I have noticed that phenomenon.  I'll be doing that myself, later on.

...
Theists might not think their reasoning is fallacious because they are attached to the conclusion of their argument.
...

Excellent observation.

They are using WKID rather than DIKW

...
We need to stop thinking that there is some "out there" agreed upon set of logical fallacies. If a post hoc argument works in your conception, that's your subjective opinion, and no one ought to be able to say "That reasoning doesn't follow." That's just their opinion.
...

There's that 'ought from is' problem again.

...
9. I don't think there is any doubt that our capacity to use logic is the product of evolution.
...

Agreed.  

I prefer the word 'capability' to the word 'capacity' but no worries.

...
That (somehow) makes it subjective.
...

Non sequitur!

(told you so   )

...
It's pretty clear that our hominid ancestors lacked the capacity to use logic. And we evolved the capacity to employ it. Anything that is the product of evolution cannot be objective, of course.
...

Non sequitur, again.  Something like 'the number of extinct species' would be hard (if not impossible) to quantify but it would still be a quantitative metric.

It's a fair point though overall... what, indeed, were the earliest thinking-tools?  

I have a suspicion that both music and spear-throwing have the same root... the heartbeat as the basis for rhythm and counting.  Tribal music (particularly drums) and dance had the benefit of aiding group co-ordination.

...
I hope that atheists will take note of what I've said here, and stop calling theists out for "misuse of logic." You can't do that
...

I can and I will.  

Children who are not taught the correct way to use power tools could get themselves hurt.

...
That assumes some kind of objective component to logic.
...

That would be correct.  Boolean logic, for example, can contain both quantitative and qualitative elements.

...
Logic is a cultural/subjective thing.
...

Culture is 'aggregated behaviour'.  Logic (as information technology) acts as an enabler/constraint that influences behaviour.

...
Whether their logical arguments follow or not is a matter of opinion. 
...

Incorrect.

...
Logical reasoning is merely an artifact of our evolutionary development.
...

Artifact or artefact?  The latter appears more fashionable in governance circles.  But yes, it's a highly prized artefact due to its usefulness.

...
It helped communication in tribal social spheres and helped us figure out where food supplies were when we were hunter/gatherers. Cavemen used rudimentary logic. "I heard rustling in bushes. Therefore bunny that I'm hunting went into bushes."
...

I think you are referring to reasoning rather than formal logic but yes, as information-technology, it's a valuable survival tool.

...
There is no "out there" objective metric by which we can measure the accuracy of logical arguments.
...

Again, 'accuracy' is an intrinsic quality criteria, so no 'out there' is required.

...
If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, so would logic.
...

This, sadly, might be true unless a post-human species can decipher our artefacts stored in our information technology e.g. books.  

If we want to assist future species then we probably ought to consider using more resilient media such as stone tablets.

That would be the logicial, no, the reasonable thing to do.

[vulcanlogician]

Hey man! No calling non sequitur when I'm employing sarcasm. That's me saying YOUR argument is a non sequitur.

Tbh, I didn't really understand the simplex/duplex thing, so I was just spitballin' there.

Arguably, formal logic is dependant on some social context. But maybe you have a point there too. The rest, I'll get back to you on.

[DLJ]

...
Tbh, I didn't really understand the simplex/duplex thing, so I was just spitballin' there.
...

I guessed.



Fair warning: I intend to address all posts with the seriousness introduced in the OP.

[robvalue]

[DLJ]

...
If you’d like me to do some reading on any/all of the parts I’m not so familiar with, please let me know, and I’ll do so!
...

I wouldn't wish that on you. International Best Practice manuals and ISO standards are only good for those with insomnia problems.

I'll pick out the bits you queried and expand on them (later today, it's gone 1am here).

...
When I’m more with it, I’ll try and add some more of my own philosophy here too.

Looking forward to it. But take your time. No rush, no worries.

[robvalue]