The Role of Logic

SeventhSL wrote: Thanks Arkayik. I'm just apologetic because I was not able to supply the kind of input sought.

Sure you are, SeventhSL. Just because you aren't necessarily familiar with the type of logic the thread is about doesn't mean your insight isn't valuable. Besides, like I said in an earlier post, anyone can learn it.

Here, I'll try to condense the basics so you can hop right in:



That's all you need to know to get started.

I'm not sure that needed to be hidden. Good stuff!

I got a C in Logic and even though I've read tons of books it doesn't stick...

I wish it would....

Time to pull out the college textbook again!

I have consistently resisted all opportunities to teach Introduction to Logic courses. While I use logic when necessary, it is not the only tool in my cognitive tool-box. Or, to stay within the theatrical metaphor: logic is but one voice among others in a play. It still needs to be proven (at least to me) why the role of logic is valued more highly than the other roles. Still, in a play there are major characters who carry the narrative of the play. Is logic then the cognitive hero of our play? Another question then follows: Who wrote the play where logic has the lead?

To understand why logic is important, let's reframe one or two of your questions with a very similar discipline:

"It still needs to be proven (at least to me) why the discipline of neuroscience is valued more highly than other disciplines...Is neuroscience then the...hero of our play? Who wrote the play where neuroscience has the lead?"

Now, while it doesn't fit as prettily into your sentence as the original noun, but I think those questions are still valid since, like logic, neuroscience is a field of study wherein, after much research, testing, experimentation, and discussion, we may discover the way in which our mind functions.

It's true logic has its place, but the implications of its study do not end at designated boundaries. As the science of thought processes, logic applies almost anytime we think. Any time we draw conclusions, discuss those conclusions with others, or try to solidify our own conclusions, logic is there. Logic is the notebook paper we write all our thoughts down on. That's why it's important to understand it.

rugadd wrote: I'm not sure that needed to be hidden.

It needed to be hidden so that Jestor doesn't know we're on to him being a bobcat.

I took one logic class in college and loved it. I agree that it's important but also that, as has been stated, it can lead to off topic nitpicking rather than actually discussing the topic at hand. I've seen lots of times when highly intelligent people were wrong and used logic to attack the argument of someone who wasn't as intelligent just to confuse and belittle them. I have seen it used as kind of a smart person's bullying tactic.

Logic is one more thing that must be used correctly and carefully to actually be a tool for the betterment of the world.

If you kindly allow me my vanity:

Gisteron wrote: Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, of course. But one cannot continue something one did not begin.

And it is both sides indeed. Logic on her own is almost but useless while almost but nothing is useful without her. It is inconceivable that something purely illogical (as viewed independantly of its correspondence with anything else) still be true. So where logic has to be discarded, all thought has to. At the same time it is well conceivable that something untrue be quite logical in almost all the ways one might hope it is. That's the shortcoming of logic unguided and unguarded by further layers of epistemic filters.

What I mean to say is, you can't do without logic. But you can't do with nothing besides logic either.

Thanks for taking the time to write that down steamboat. It is basically what I thought you meant at the start of the thread so I guess I'll elaborate the connection to my previous post.

Firstly it is important to understand that a premise is more often than not a conclusion from other premise. So even in the basic examples you gave the premise "Jestor is a Jedi" is actually a conclusion from other premise like "Jestor has taken the simple Oath", "Jestor has submitted an application", "Jestor is over 13 years old" etc. Long story short is that even in relatively simple logic the amount of premise that underpins it becomes exponentially huge.

The next important point is that, as you have pointed out, all of the premise must be true for the conclusion to be correct. This means all the way back down the tree of logic to the roots.

Now the problem is that conclusions are prone to error through personal bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias ). With an exponentially huge amount of premise there is an exponentially huge chance of bias creeping in. I know is was just an example but even here the premise you gave "All Jedi are cool" is bias. That is how easy it is.

Bias is about peoples preferences which brings me to my initial post which is observations of people's logic based on their preferences (Meyer Briggs Personalities). So I suggest that to understand people's logic you must understand their premise and to understand their premise you must understand their bias.

The first observation I made is that overly logical people (NT Analyst, I'm one of them) have serious trouble accepting what I just wrote because it attacks their foundations and all kinds of cognitive dissonance effects ensue. Don't get me wrong cold unemotional (read less bias) logic is exceptionally important to mankind. Without it we simply wouldn't be as technically advanced as we are today.

The second observation I made was that people who do not consider themselves to be logical or follow the logical process you have outlined here actually do. Something like "I'm not logical and here are the premise to support my logical conclusion". They avoid overly applying logical processes because they understand its weakness. Because they aren't looking to remove bias they are warm and emotionally understanding people. These people are the glue that makes life worth living.

Anyway I'm weird I known but this has been an exceptional enjoyable thread for me. Thanks very much steamboat.

Every argument has a bias. There is no "cold logic." It exists in theory, but anytime logic is put into practice there is a bias. Whether that's a bias toward the known (facts) or a bias toward the unknown (ignorance) or the unproveable (emotion) doesn't really matter. Even what most people might perceive as a coldly logical decision (ordering the death of one to save five hundred, for example) is still rooted in a bias toward those 500 based on some intuition or information. That infomation could be as factual as "There is a greater potential for continued survival and good in these 500 than in that 1", or it could be a personal emotional bias, such as "I would feel personally responsible either way, and I can live with murdering one easier than I could live with murdering five-hundred."

The premise "All Jedi are cool" can still be true as a subjective "truth"; I think that all Jedi are cool. (I don't, incidentally, but that's another discussion for another thread.) The reason that subjective truths can work here occasionally is that when you look at whether or not an argument is logical, you must first discern validity, which requires you to presuppose the premises to be true, giving you an insight into the reasoning behind the reasoning of others. Everyone does think differently, and logic further helps us break down these subjective truths into more managable chunks:

"Well, since I believe that all Jedi are cool..."

"Do you, though?"

"What?"

"Do you believe that all Jedi are cool?"

"Well...I guess not. I met this one guy and he was kind of a jerk. His name was steamboat28, and he came off really arrogant. Forget that guy."

"Okay. Now that we've established that not all Jedi are cool, and that was part of the basis of your argument, would you like to restate your premise in a more truthful way, or abandon your conclusion?"

"Alright, alright. Most Jedi are cool."

As much as I rail against the idea of subjective truth in concrete, objective situations, subjective truths are extremely important in establishing or supporting personal bias, as well as every decision a person makes. We each form our own opinions about the "truth" of the world, and those subjective truths color our perceptions. It is through logical discourse that we may examine them, lay them bare, and discard them if we find them lacking.

Furthermore, everyone does use logic, to one degree or another. If you don't believe me, find someone who says they don't and ask them to prove it. "Please explain how you reached the conclusion that you are not a logical person." They'll either give you premises to support their belief, or they'll realize they don't have any premises to support their believe (knowing, subconsciously, that they are necessary) and abandon it. That's how thought works.

The question is whether or not people use correctly informed logic, which is where the study of Logic itself comes into play.

steamboat28 wrote: I've found this true more often than not, unfortunately, and I'm curious as to why people so easily and readily dismiss logic as something extraneous or unnecessary.

Opinions?

maybe people that dismiss logic want to avoid a weakness from a lack of courage and discipline.