Should Reason, Rationality and Logic Be the End all Be all?

Post Reply New Topic

Who or what or how is a 'logical' person? And compared to, well, what?

I am not stereotyping people. I have made no assumption about what motivates them. I am dealing with the external marks of a certain way of thinking about 'logic' that I have noticed over the years. The point is summed up in my signature.

I am voicing an observation that the term 'logical' or 'rational' is often placed in opposition (and superiority) to 'emotional'. That what gives an idea, or sometimes a person, the seeming/asserted qualities of 'logical' or 'rational' - asserted from within and without - is something approaching sociopathy. That is, showing disregard for people, or not caring about anyone but themselves: for to care about others is to be 'emotional' which, as noted, is taken to be in opposition to 'rational'. I have come across it often (though certainly not exclusively) in certain libertarian or Objectivist assertions, and also agreed upon in critiques of such. That is to say, the matter of the 'logic' or 'rationality' of certain positions being agreed upon by both supporters and dissenters, the dispute necessarily comes down to something outside of - possibly even opposed to - 'reason' or 'logic'.

I shall see if I can find any examples to flesh out what I'm talking about, but I don't tend to remember where I've seen it. Next time I do, I'll mention it.

ETA: a small sort-of example. Some years back I was being driven by my sister-in-law, who was talking about her mother's good opinion of the town they both lived in. My SIL didn't share this view, and considered her view 'more realistic' unbiased as it was by affection for the place.

Further ETA: "Btw, any logical female aspies here at all ? Or are they just avoiding this thread?"

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6070428.html#6070428

I did not intend any offense against you and I apologize if I inadvertently committed an affront against you.

Now that being said. The thing is though facts and evidence can be open to subjective interpretation. Does the chicken cross the road or does the road cross the chicken?

You have five senses that takes in raw data from the external environment and your brain processes it into possibly useful information. Our five senses are configured a certain a way and is our brains. No brain wiring is exactly alike. The thing is the facts and empirical evidence that you claim are facts and empirical are your interpretations of reality. They're the model that is projected through your fives senses and processed through you're brain including the emotional part of our brain.

Even though I do try to keep an open mind and do try to set aside my emotions it is my opinion that based upon these facts about human beings that one can be as objective as possible but one can't be 100% objective.

For the most part, people are not logical and if they are they will use it to defend their beliefs. This is fact right here and when we're dealing with people and relationships we have to keep this in mind.

Logic and rationality may be an excellent tool to use but one may have to use other tools like deal in other people's feelings and emotions. For example, StarvingArtist and other females do not feel comfortable or safe as long these sexist comments are allowed. . This is fact right here that is provable. I believe wrongplanet should be a welcoming environment for all because I would want it to be a welcoming environment for me. I want this to be for the whole world. This isn't logical or rational. It is empathy and moral. I desire for the mods to be more zealous in stamping out the sexism that has run rampant.

It doesn't matter if it logically exists or not. That's your interpretation. The women FEEL that it does. I want them to feel safe because I feel empathy for them. I know what it is like to not feel safe especially when going to school. I'm purposely choosing to use my emotional side and my empathy to conclude that I agree with them.

The concept is similar to my discussion with Adb. IMHO, You have to factor in emotion and empathy into rationality to making a decision. He would go with the pure economics, business and rational based solution that would save him the most money. I believe in saving money yes but not in hurting those around me and the environment as a whole that could hurt future generations. Let's say I make 10 million from my factory per year and it puts out pollution and sludge into the environment and it harms people. Yes, this would be rational under economics but is it moral and ethical. If I can be moral and ethical and still make 5 million why wouldn't I do this? I used my emotional side but in a rational way of course. I synergized my empathy with the rational based business side.

For a science experiment all the scientific method does is gives one a series of logical steps to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Rationality, logic and science does not tell if one should morally and ethically do the actual experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis or not. Life is a lot more than just rationality, logic, reason, proof and empirical evidence in my opinion. To me, this is what the rationalists miss.

You're right. It is opinion supported by nothing other than observation. And the bolded words show one of the things I misunderstood. I was thinking about people who claim to be like spock and not people who claim to be using logic. People can use logic as a tool. I'd still like to know how anyone could make the absolute claim that they are "logical and unbiased" as opposed to "My opinion in this case is supported by logic".

Also what do you mean by "which statement is actually correct"? Don't you mean "which statements are actually correct"? Are you implying that it would be impossible for both statements to be correct at the same time? How are they mutually exclusive?

Also, I realize that the word I should've used instead of usually is often. That would've been more accurate.

I use my emotion and feelings as intuition. That is, I explore possible reasons I could be feeling like I am. I dont think this is taking anything away from logic, it's just more of a tapestry approach - feelings are like the flashlight illuminating the map.

Which, IMHO, is a legitimate approach.

Emotions are marvelous things. They make life worthwhile. Who would prefer to be a robot or automaton, indifferent to life or death, incapable of joy or pleasure? What emotions are not, however, is tools of cognition. That is because they come from a jumble of life experience "programming" which may or may not be germane to a given situation. If your opponent has a solid logical argument for his position, and all you have is "I can't prove it, but I feel that you're wrong," then you haven't anything.

Imagine taking an emotion-based approach to something concrete, like civil engineering.
You: I can't prove it, but I feel that a twenty-inch I-beam girder will be just fine here.
Another engineer: The math says that a thirty-inch girder is needed to carry the load safely.
You: What, are logic and math the be-all and end-all of everything?

Reason is non-contradictory identification; given sound premises, to live in accordance with reason is to live in accordance with reality. It certainly does not imply "not caring about others" ? I really don't know where that came from. Certainly not Objectivism.

Reason and emotion need not be in opposition to each other; if you find that your 'head' and your 'heart' are opposed on a given issue, the thing to do is to check one's premises, introspect, and discover the source of the contradiction.

No, it is not and should not. I feel sorry for any one who disagrees but I wont bother trying to argue with them, those kinds of people are usually so narrow minded and short sighted that it isnt even worth it. Not everything boils down to logic, there is no arguing this.

Without logic, objectivity, rationality we would have no medicine, no internet, and everything people take for granted. The quest of civilization is to civilize our inner ape. That being said there is some place for our feelings but our primal feelings are dangerous in the sense that 99% of humanity cannot judge the value of their own value judgements and weigh it against the consequences for others. Most people are petty and not qualified to judge much of anything because of the time, education and sense of history required.

When people get easily upset and slighted that's a sign of immaturity, since the human brain is not well put together and there is no 'free will' then a persons perceptions need to be judged accordingly to their actual value and relevance versus their character traits.

Let's take starvingartist and misogyny, this is all her perception governed by her personal representation of the world. Where the problem comes is that nothing ever stays stable.

Let's take a look at feminism, at one time feminism dealt with real issues but it quickly got out of hand and became a club for shaming men and ostracizing men. Now men cannot go into teaching without being considered pedophiles, etc, all men now stay away from kids because of this fear of being judged/shamed by women who are overly paranoid and fearful.

This is the problem is that real issues quickly are overcome personal bias and hidden agenda's that take away other peoples rights to live and exist in society.

If women got to experience their own kind in the body of a man many of them would retract many of their opinions about men very quickly having to live as a man does and seeing the behavior of themselves from the mans point of view.

Hmm, looks like a stereotype to me...



That sounds an awful lot like an assumption about what motivates logical people...



Of course it is, as in the context of reasoning and argument, logic is superior, which is why emotionally compromised people are not allowed to serve on juries, for example.



Cite? that's a fairly extraordinary claim, I'd expect some extraordinary proof.



So, hearsay and anecdotes, then?



Some disputes may go that way, other can certainly be analyzed logically. For example, many people here have double standards, such as complaining when wealthy donors finance political activity they disagree with, while cheering when the money goes to their pet cause; there is no subjectivity there, logic decrees that those people are hypocrites. There are numerous other examples I could provide, most people have no idea how to argue and constantly make fallacious points and rely on flawed reasoning.

i make a thread asking other members if they would like to participate in a concerted effort to get the attention of the site creator to change the policy so that sexism is moderated as stringently as racism and other forms of bigotry, and i get told publicly to "get over yourself, dumb b***h." yeah, the misogyny and sexism on this site is totally imaginary, just my perception and not real.

I was going through point by point, but then I saw this and realized I could save a lot of time.

I FEEL that the accusations of rampant sexism on this board unjustly accuse the men of Wrong Planet of bigotry, and that makes me feel unsafe and unwelcome here. I think those members making these accusations should be sanctioned, and the rules changed to prohibit similar behavior in the future, so that I and the other male Aspies who come here for support can use the site without having to fear being falsely accused of sexism. (I don't really think this, but bear with me)

My statement above also corresponds to your empathy for people who don't feel safe, and I'm proposing the same remedy as the women in the other thread. Unlike them, I can provide examples of what I'm complaining about, to whit, the thread that you linked to in your OP, so why are they right and I wrong? Don't you want the men of Wrong Planet to feel safe from false and hurtful accusations?

A lot of political rhetoric uses the language of reason and logic incorrectly, to give the impression that a policy is the only correct one given the circumstances. This is common within political ideologies. The correct or incorrect deployment logical fallacies is also a common trolling technique.

Last edited by Stannis on 25 May 2014, 3:15 am, edited 14 times in total.

I don't feel (lol) that anyone has ever been sexist to me personally on WP. On the contrary, I find the men to be fun.
Some of the posts, especially in L&D, are a bit generalizing and seem to sometimes stem from anger and frustration. But this is true for both sexes and I think is to be expected.

"Cold, hard facts".

Why are facts 'cold' and 'hard'? Why is this phrase - a piece of performative, emotive rhetoric that has nothing to do with facts themselves - often reached for when Keats' "beauty is truth, truth beauty" wouldn't be touched with the proverbial 10ft bargepole?

Yeah, but it isn't. I will admit 'usually' is an unhelpfully broad brush, mind, and I should have either used something less broad, or put forward other cases.



Again, yeah, but it isn't. It is not an assumption of motivation, but rather a sketching out of a particular blind spot/lack of self awareness.



It's not quite that, though. What I am getting at is that much in life is not just a matter or 'reasoning and argument'.



I've said I'll let you know when I come across some examples.



Well, yes. Again, I've said I'll provide particular examples when I come across them. It's something I see fairly often, particularly online, but I don't bookmark the pages where I come across it, or note down the particular arguments. I notice it, roll my eyes, and move on.

I did give some lesser examples, mind. You ignored them.



Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am against letting such claims of 'logical' or 'rational', attributed to certain types of ideas or people, go unchallenged. I am against the language and thinking that surrounds a particular idea of 'logical' or 'rational'. That's my beef.

Nor am I particularly having a pop at 'logical' people. For one, I don't know what you mean by "logical people". I am talking about a certain way and why people and ideas are often deemed 'logical', and would probably disagree that how they are is particularly 'logical'

Bold - now that's quite the extraordinary claim...

Also, again, please explain to me what a 'logical' person is.

A 'feeling' that someone is wrong is often the first step toward critiquing their argument in a sensible and clear way. The 'feeling' that they are wrong often accompanies and motivates one's (sensible, reasoned) counter-argument.

I am talking about a very particular practice of labelling certain thinking 'logical' and 'rational'. I am not at all arguing against reason or logic themselves. Indeed, I am in favour of taking back 'rational' and 'logical' from such thinking.

In your strawman example, I would say the other engineer has the perfectly sound motivation (desire, feeling, sentiment) that the materials and methods used should ensure the building is safe to enter and use/inhabit, and that the best methods to determine this are maths and knowledge from previous experience etc. I would be fully in agreement, and would be surprised that anyone with the ideas you assign to me has gotten anywhere near that kind of influence in such a project. Must be nepotism or something.

Nor do I see reason and feeling as inevitably and invariably opposed, each negating the other. I see reason and feeling as inextricably related (in Mary Midgley's phrase, as the size and shape of an object are related) and bound up with one another. I think where they seem in opposition, it is a matter of emphasis as to what is 'reason/head' and what 'emotion/heart', and the conflict comes from incompatible desires.