What Logic Is and Isn't....?

Post Reply New Topic

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't logic a process -- a method?

I frequently see and hear people accuse each other of being illogical (and talking about emotions as if they can't ever be part of logical decision making -- they can be, as variables in a logical thought process used to imagine probable outcomes for an individual) and a lot of the time it seems people are just using "illogical" as a synonym for "wrong" (or "emotionless"). Here is what I think:

A person's logical conclusions are only as accurate as the variables they're working with. "Logical" applied to a conclusion does not mean the same thing as "correct" (and "logical" applied to a thought process does not mean "does not consider emotions" -- at least not if you use the word "logical" literally). A person can use logic to arrive at a conclusion and still be wrong. Two people can arrive at completely different conclusions while still being completely logical, if the variables (what they know or are able to perceive about the situation) they have to work with are different....

Me disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they are being illogical -- me not seeing someone else's logic doesn't mean they are being illogical; If I can't see every single piece of the other person's thought process and prior knowledge and perspective, I have no way of knowing whether or not they are being logical or illogical given the variables they're working with. How do people conclude so easily that another person is not being logical?

I view this about the same way. My experience has been that another person and I are following a different logical model (or process) in analyzing something, and/or are using different supporting facts and assumptions (i.e. variables).

Rather than getting all up in each other's face and hurling words like "illogical" and "common sense", a careful review of how we each arrived at our conclusions can usually reveal the real underlying differences. Those can then be often discussed and reconciled (in my experience) rather easily, or we at least know more precisely about what we choose to agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, such a careful review can require time, cool heads, and mutual commitment to work together toward a common good. Rare, though it can be aided by bringing in a disinterested trained professional facilitator.

I have found using denigrating terms like illogical, nonsense, foolish, and so on to seldom yield helpful results.

logic to me is a process whereby a postulation has a symmetrical counterpart which, whilst equally real in it's mirror image construct, is "preposterous".

I have no idea how to answer your question, but I'm so incredibly thrilled that you posted this. It has been on my mind for so long and was actually perseverating throughout today.

------------------------------------------

What annoys me more than most other things:

+ A belief that the involvement of emotions into an argument or anything else is illogical.
+ A belief that because math involves logic, it is the best/only indicator of general intelligence.

If you're ignoring your emotions for the sake of impressing an audience with your tough, calculating nature then you're not in the position to dismiss another (without those blockades) as being 'illogical'. Technically if you're doing that, you're the one who is being illogical; 'logical' is not synonymous to 'emotionless'. Personality tests seem to stereotype this to be true. They use the term 'logic' loosely.

Math involves logic, but that logic is based on learning in a logical manner. If you miss multiple lessons in class and you're on a completely new topic, you aren't going to be able to 'use logic' to understand it without any help. You're going to need to at least read or discuss what you've missed, otherwise there will be gaps in your logical processes. A five year old isn't going to suddenly be able to differentiate at first site because they are 'logical'. When I discuss this it really confuses me as to what logic actually is, especially with regards to math. I could go on about it all day if the discussion was of philosophical nature.

What annoys me the most:

+ A belief that 'being logical' makes one superior to their peers, particularly intellectually.

Yes, I'm aware that if you're highly intelligence you're more likely to have more efficient/effective thought processes regarding logical reasoning in general than those with lower intelligence. I don't believe that it's something that can't be learned in many cases however, nor do I believe that intelligence = logic, rather I think it makes thinking logically come easier to an individual. Experience may lessen the gap caused by intelligence. This annoyance ties in to the other two and much more. Having an ego because you think you're 'logical' legitimately portrays the complete opposite to a wary individual. Everyone is logical, you just abide to the stereotypes more strongly.

Last edited by Norny on 20 Feb 2014, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very logical, and I find it works well amongst the willing!

Mine, too. Well said.



I wish it wasn't so rare.



I like your description/definition -- it makes a lot of sense to me.




How are they (the person in "you're the one who is being illogical") being illogical?



I see what you're saying.....capacity for logical thought can't, by itself, allow you to acquire knowledge

Math also involves language skills, which is another thing that can affect how good a person is at it....and of course a person can be good at one type of math and not others.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying (sorry!)....I think I get the gist, though, about (de)valuing people based on specific (dis/in)abilities or ways of thinking or IQ. That bothers me, too.

Logic is the systematic study and use of the interrelationship between statements (mathematical, symbolic or verbal) in order to determine whether they are (a) complete and utter nonsense, or (b) if they provide conclusions that are useful, coherent and correct. This formal study is often called the "Science of Reasoning" or the "Philosophy of Reason".

Emotion plays no part in logic. In fact, several dozen or so fallacies of reason are either based on emotional states or are used to provoke emotional reactions, thus disrupting an opponent's ability to use logic in a formal debate. Thus, the use of emotionally-laden rhetoric on a discussion is not only unreasonable, but it really is illogical.

Maths are logical. Emotion plays no part in solving mathematical equations, although emotions often can and do cloud a person's ability to use maths.

Any method of solving problems that is not based on logic is doomed to cause more problems in the future.

It is a tool, the process of non-contradictory identification.



Emotions are marvelous things. No sane person would wish to be an emotionless robot, incapable of experiencing joy or pleasure, indifferent to life or death. However, emotions are not tools of cognition.



Well, it's true that reasoning is only as useful as the premises on which it is based. "Good logic" in a vacuum is known as rationalism.



You may conclude it when others describe the logic they are supposedly using. If someone merely tells me "I believe Ethical Theory A to be good and Ethical Theory B to be evil," I don't know his premises nor his standards nor how he arrived at that conclusion. But if he says, "A is good because it says so in this ancient book," that is a logical fallacy, an appeal to a very dubious authority. Or if he says, "The philosopher who devised Theory B did something bad once, therefore B is evil," that is a form of ad hominem even if the charge is true. Or if he says "Theory B advocates eating babies for breakfast, therefore it is evil," when it advocates nothing of the kind, that is a straw man. Et cetera.

I have found the study of formal logic extremely useful in my life. There are a number of good books and websites devoted to the subject. Here's a taste, a chart of common fallacies:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/yourlogicalfal ... hic_A1.pdf

If everybody were familiar with those it would shorten a lot of Internet discussions.

This is a very useful definition, too. Is it an official part of any particular definition that correctness must be included if a conclusion is to be considered logical? (Just curious and clarifying, not challenging.)



Not in the model/process itself, no, but sometimes it seems like people think considerations about emotion can't even be called "logical". (i.e. that if I factor my knowledge about how I feel or how I react to things emotionally into a judgement about what would be best for me to do in a given situation to achieve or avoid a specific outcome, that it's no longer a logical decision-making process simply because I'm thinking about emotions and how they affect me and basing my decision party on that knowledge....perhaps nobody thinks this and I just misunderstand people, I don't know....it's just the way it seems sometimes.)



That's fair enough. I was thinking of situations where a person's reasoning and premises are not clear.

Because it's egotistically spawned and centered around a false stereotype that logic = no emotions; it's that person displaying that their logic is 'more correct' than the other individual's simply because the other involves emotions.



I was ranting about the common stereotypes I listed based on what you posted. It was really late when I posted that though so it came out really sloppy.

Logic is a part of philosphy. Fnord has already provided a good explanation.

Are feelings part of a logical thought structure?

No, they aren't.

Is logic the only intelligent way to think?

It depends a lot on what are you thinking about and what do you want to achieve.

Are emotions to be excluded of the human decision making process?

Sometimes it is a good idea, and sometimes it is not.

Here's the thing: The universe pretty much doesn't care at all about the way you feel. That is a harsh truth and the sooner you accept it, the sooner you'll work towards your happiness. We understand the universe through logic. And that's why we need to keep our emotions at bay when we are doing that.

Logical thought is a very powerful tool, a bulding can't hold itself toghether on emotion. You need logic and maths. Computers, airplanes, robots. All of them function thanks to emotionless, cold, heartless logic.

So there's no place for emotions?

Of course there is. We, as human beings need to pursue happiness. And happiness isn't a logical thing. But happiness works at an individual level, since there are different things that make different people happy. Every decision you make in order to achieve personal realization, is not necessarily guided exclusively by logic or logical thought. Your emotions get to play a big part in it.

Think of emotions as glasses. If you wear them you see things differently. If someone is wearing the same glasses as you are, you'll be able to share a lot with them. But sometimes people are wearing other sort of glasses. And when you interact with them you clash. Logic is a way to take off the glasses. Probably things will not look as great as when you wear glasses. Stars wouldn't be so bright, or the world migh be less colorful. But without glasses, people is able to communicate without clashing, without having conflict.

Sometimes it might be difficult to take off the glasses, to remove emotions. Emotions are enjoyable, but there are very personal things. And not everyone shares them. Logic is something that everybody shares. That's why it is so easy to transfer knowledge through logical channels. Scientific knowledge spreads easily and globally. Cultural idiosyncracies don't. The world has pretty much reached an agreement of the way gravitaty behaves, or how chemical substances interact; but there are huge cultural disagreements that are centuries or even milennia old and don't seem to be getting anywhere. And those are the things that are built on emotion. So in simpler words:

Use emotions when you make choices that affect your personal pursuit of happiness.
Use logic to have a better understanding of the world around you and the way other's think.

Got it now. I was not including "false stereotypes" as illogical, and thinking that if he believed the false stereotype as a premise that his logic could have been sound and his premises faulty....

But as I think about this more, think about what everyone has posted, I can see how premises can be based on faulty logic as well .... there are levels to it, if that makes any sense. It's hard for me to see all the pieces of the whole here, I think (and that's probably not a very meaningful explanation of what I'm referring to -- sorry about that).



Okay. I didn't think what you wrote was sloppy or badly written or anything, I just didn't think I understood.



I never said they were -- or at least I never meant to say they were, if what I wrote seemed to convey that message.

There is a difference between thinking about emotions as variables or as the thing-thought-about, and feeling emotions or acting from emotion. (Not that I think there is automatically something wrong with acting from emotion -- emotions can, as you said, be extremely useful things and acting from emotion can be good or bad depending on the action and the circumstances.)... I'm not saying emotions are the same thing as logical thought nor did I ever intend to compare (not in any way at all) feeling emotions to thinking logically.

Logic is necessary but not sufficient. Emotion is needed to since it gives guidance to choose among the many possible solutions to a problem that logic can give. If emotion isn't involved also, you wind up in A Modest Proposal territory.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html





tl:dr the logical solution is to eat them. (yes, I know he was being snarky)

Logic is an excellent method to generate many solutions to a given problem. Emotion allows for the wise choosing which of the possible logical solutions should be implemented.

by elevating supporting beliefs and assumptions to an exaggerated status of certainty. if you are certain of something, then you are effectively demanding a thought to be true and so inclined to suppose that any statement or argument that seems to conflict with it must be mistaken. if you start out with a strong preference that an opposing view be wrong, then the aim of inquiry often becomes simply to dispose of it in order to maintain your cherished view. to interpret an opposing or seemingly opposing view as being coherent when you already 'know' that it must wrong does not make sense.

oh. i thought this was about the sequencing software.

Friedrich Nietzsche provides a strong example of the rejection of the usual basis of logic: his radical rejection of idealisation led him to reject truth as a "...mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short ... metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."
His rejection of truth did not lead him to reject the idea of either inference or logic completely, but rather suggested that "logic [came] into existence in man's head [out] of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished".

Thus there is the idea that logical inference has a use as a tool for human survival, but that its existence does not support the existence of truth, nor does it have a reality beyond the instrumental: "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world".