On Sep 14, 2013, at 5:12 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [djh] >>>>> However; logic isn't common sense. Logic is its own distinct >>>>> intellectual thing which follows its own rules regardless of the fact >>>>> that it is built out of the mythos. Furthermore, it's not a question of >>>>> formal logic vs common sense. You've done a philosophical logic 101 >>>>> class. >>>>> Even casual conversations include their own logic with their own premises >>>>> and conclusions. >>>> >>>> I have had courses in both formal logic and critical thinking. I don't >>>> recognize either in your statement. Most of what people consider logic is >>>> built backwards, rather than built on sound premises. It's more likely >>>> conclusions justified by whatever seems to work. >>> >>> [djh] >>> Of course that's how it works. But does that mean that logic doesn't exist >>> or isn't valuable? That's how most of us reason, it's only on reflection >>> when we look back can we see the logic to our words. The logic is formed >>> by the value of them. But again, does that mean that logic doesn't exist or >>> isn't valuable? As the Hail example demonstrated logic is a great way for >>> us to talk to one another about experiences we may not have had and as a >>> result - quality which we cannot necessarily see but still exists >>> nonetheless. Don't you agree? >> >> What I think important is removing the possibility of grasping false beliefs >> too tightly. And mistaking everyday communication for logic can be just >> such an example. But yes, of course, it's all value. Man the rational >> animal is more like man who can't ask for directions. > > [djh] > There's a difference between thinking that logic can help to govern our > everyday thoughts and thinking that logic exclusively governs our everyday > thoughts. As the Hail example showed - logic can help to show us things which > we may not have experienced directly but are still valuable. There's > nothing wrong with rationality so long as it is not *exclusively* put in > charge of the whole process. A rational man who refuses to ask for > directions is one such an example of someone who places rationality above all > else. But there are also times when it's good to explore the rationality and > logic of an idea. Like say, on a philosophical discussion board. > >> By the way, I had the logic class at UCONN (Go Huskies!!!); it was titled >> Symbolic Logic, and it was a 200-level course. It was the same class taken >> by graduate students, but they were given addition problems on their final >> exam. And while it may not have turned me into a Master Logician, I did >> very well in the class and it certainly made its impression on me. Because >> I was working at the time, and it was a class never given in the evening, I >> arranged (begged) to take half-day vacation time to attend the class. I >> also gave up a vacation to Spain that year for that particular class. > > [djh] > What sort of impression did it leave on you? I had the course in 1987, so it's not fresh in my mind. I think the strongest impression was that formal logic is not without problems. Inductive logic adds no new information. It's definitional and the soundness of the conclusion is totally dependent on the soundness of the premises. The problem in an argument can be agreeing on the soundness of the premises, and an argument with many levels of syllogisms may be very complicated to untangle. Deduction is a problem because one never has access to all occurrences, past and future, so it offers no definite conclusion. > Do you think logic is any good? The biggest problem is when individuals don't understand what it is and what it isn't and confuse formal logic with rationalizing their own prejudices. That's most often the case. Typical of the confusion, as I mentioned the other day, is working backwards: justifying a conclusion with whatever seems to work. Sure logic can be useful, if knowing all the pitfalls, you use it to check your own thinking, but people seldom do. And with your normal everyday informal logic used in arguments, there are all those nasty fallacies. > If so, when's it good and when isn't it any good? I used an inductive syllogism just a few weeks ago to prove a point. Did it prove a point? I don't think so. I think it just made someone feel inadequate and defensive, and that was not my intention. East and West, people and institutions brag of their supreme use of logic. I am not going to say its bad, only that it has potential problems. There are also books written of the problems. Two I've read that come to mind are 'Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge' by William Poundstone, and 'Black Swan' by Nassim N. Taleb. I like holding all knowledge, especially my own, as hypothetical, supposed but not necessarily real or true. That I hope keeps me open to new possibilities but somewhat humble. Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
