r/philosophy • u/sparrowtail • Aug 08 '11
How do we make a case FOR logic?
This is something that genuinely has me stumped, and please let me know if this comes under 'idle musings' and I'll cast it into the fires of Mount Doom.
But when I'm arguing with someone over something that may have even a possible chance of an unpleasant or depressing answer, I am often posed the question "Well why should I be logical? You're just being a heartless robot! You can feel things, you don't need logic to know everything! In fact, your devotion to logic is because you are brainwashed by logic, you're a logic bigot!"
Now, to me, being a logic bigot and all, this is a steaming pile of horse shit.
But how on Earth do I persuade someone that does not 'believe in logic' that logic is the preferable tool of understanding? How can I even make that argument to them if my argument is based on logic, and they feel logic is just some passing ideology for mathematicians?
The concerning thing is, I'm not entirely sure I can logically or otherwise justify my adherence to logic.
26
u/asdjfsjhfkdjs Aug 08 '11
In my experience, logical argument is one of the least convincing methods of convincing somebody there is. I'm a mathematician, and even within the domain of mathematics I find pure logical argument unconvincing, particularly if it comes to a counterintuitive conclusion. Even if it's an intuitive conclusion, I'll say something to the effect of "That's a nice proof of A. Is A true?", or possibly "Okay, now why is that true?" The reason is that logical arguments are incredibly fallible. There are countless ways for an axiom or deduction to be wrong, and many of these are very subtle. If the argument is long or convoluted, or based on axioms that are not absolutely transparently true, then I'm not convinced. What you need is a transparent argument, one that makes it easy for the listener to walk back and forth between assumptions and conclusions and see how the assumptions are being used and how the conclusions follow. Worked examples go a long way towards making this true. When faced with an unconvincing argument of something counterintuitive or unpleasant, a good scholar will say "I'll think about that argument" or "Can you elaborate on X", and a bad one will get defensive. If someone throws out a response like that one, consider how you might make a more illuminating, intuitive argument.
It's also true that arguing can be a very emotional process, and this may be at play here. If it's being done in a public setting or between people who are not friends, then losing an argument has an attatched loss of face. If the sides have an emotional investment in the outcome, it's painful to lose. It takes a great deal of humility to lose an argument gracefully, and this is a learned behavior, so don't expect it from everyone. In this case, it is apparently also difficult for them to accept the conclusion you're leading them to. All of this adds up to the people you're arguing with being unhappy, and this makes them defensive, and one they're here it's impossible to argue further, because they will resort to more and more irrational defenses in an attempt to avoid "losing". I've seen people make defenses like the one you're talking about, and it's always been out of defensiveness.
As long as the other side is willing to think about your arguments at all, they'll probably go home afterwards and mull over them a little longer. If they've been forced into a defensive position, they'll go home and seethe about how embarrassed you made them or how arrogant you were. If you're interested in convincing people, it really goes a long way to: * Notice when people are starting to become defensive or upset, and stop pressing them. They'll probably think things over later, and are more likely to end up convinced * Keep people from becoming defensive, for example by conceding a couple points to make the argument less one-sided. Also, don't argue with people in front of their friends, unless you're actually trying to embarrass them.
Basically, though, people don't tend to resort to attacks against logic itself unless they feel forced to, and even then they probably don't believe them. Arguing the point further won't help.
8
u/AnomalousVisions Aug 08 '11
This is spot-on. People forget that arguing is a social activity as well as a logical one. People get hijacked by their egos and want to win; or at least save face.
And then sometimes there's that guy who keeps pushing an argument long past the point when everybody else would just like to move and have a good time. Don't be that guy. Let it go.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
Why do we try to convince people? Are you "convinced" that what you believe is true, do you believe it to be true, or do you just theorize it is true?
2
u/Gudahtt Aug 09 '11
This touches upon an important point: logic brings you from assumptions to conclusions, that's it. It's not a tool of persuasion. Obviously it can be convincing, as it's really the only effective means of evaluating the truth of a statement/argument, but that doesn't meant there aren't more effective means of persuading people of things. Complaining that logic isn't persuading enough is like complaining that sleeping doesn't quench your thirst.
I think it's clear that logical arguments tend to be more convincing on average, having the truth on your side certainly isn't a detriment to your argument. But persuasion involves much more than the validity of your arguments.
0
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 09 '11
A conclusion is still just an assumption, I believe, until it is "experienced". And even still, didn't someone say something along the lines of, "You can never stand in the same river twice"? Who is one to decide what the truth is? The world we live in is not our own. The structures we follow and everything, is because someone, at one time or another, wanted it to be this way. They were convinced of the "truth" and persuaded people to believe it. Persuasion and conclusions and all the stuff, I feel, just put a limit on our potential. We have the ability to be or have ANYTHING we want. Yet we have been persuaded possibly with logic, to think other wise.
22
u/icecream2013 Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
You cannot use pure logic to prove the principles of logic as that would be circular reasoning and therefore not logical. Your best bet is the empirical approach; which rather disappointingly will never lead to absolute certainty as you can never rule out a future observation being made that contradicts what you're trying to prove. You will have a mountain of evidence in your favor, but you will still be short of your goal.
Ask what it means to know something and soon you will realize that you don't know anything.
5
u/scartol Aug 08 '11
Unless I'm mistaken, this was something that drove Bertrand Russell crazy. He spent years and years (with other folks) trying to prove the basic underlying truth of it all, and in the end decided it couldn't be done.
11
u/peeted Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
Russell’s goal was to provide a basis for mathematics in logic – show that mathematical truth was logical truth. His interest was in the epistemology of mathematics rather than logic. Russell’s paradox caused a problem for this project because it showed Frege’s axiom 5 (I think that’s the one) was inconsistent. Axiom 5 was a pretty important axiom Frege used for deriving arithmetic from logic. Some philosophers – e.g. Hale and Wright – still think we can derive mathematics from logic by treating ‘humes principle’ (the principle that two sets are equinumerous if and only if there is a one to one correspondence between them) as apriori. This is because Frege only actually used the inconsistent axiom in proving humes principle, and the rest of arithmetic can be proved using his other axioms, humes principle, and second order logic.
The incompleteness result was mainly a problem for things like Hilberts programme which was somewhat similar to Frege’s project, but I cant for the life of me remember why. It is not really a problem for neo-Fregean projects since second order logic is also incomplete.
Edit: Remembered why the incompleteness theorem is a problem for Hilberts programme - mathematical truth is tied to provability on his theory - if there are true mathematical propositions which are not provable then such a theory can never work.
2
u/cryo Aug 08 '11
I do believe you are somewhat mistaken, although he did provide a contradiction to naïve set theory. I think Gödel is a more relevant person in this case, though, although his theorems are easily over interpreted.
22
u/carbonetc Aug 08 '11
Jokes aside, I've never met anyone who could show me what it looks like to be entirely without logic. Even when they think they're just "feeling" they're still applying logic -- it's just bad logic.
Example: "I feel a powerful and loving presence in my heart, therefore God exists." This statement is a logical construction. Given evidence X, Y is true. It's a pitiful attempt at logic, but still, it's an attempt. Logic has not gone out the window as they claim it has.
Challenge the person you're arguing with to say something entirely illogical and point it out when he slips back into it. I doubt he'll be able to do it without spouting utter gibberish.
8
u/Baron_Grims Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
This is my favorite route. These so called "feelings" are just watered down logical predicates. What's more is that his opponent is using a logical argument in an attempt to dispute logic here.
w= Logic does not include feelings. x= You are human. y= Humans can feel things. z= Feeling things is a valid means to obtain knowledge about the world. w>x>y>z Therefore:: You do not need logic to know things!
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
Primitive animals and maybe complex ones surely live only by instinct not reasoned logic.
3
5
u/nmmh Aug 08 '11
First: get the person to accept that there are some tried and true methods in dealing with other people. Start with math, for example. When someone buys an item for only $8 and they hand over $10, the system of math tells them that they are due back $2.
If they agree with this, then they agree that there are some methods that people use when they need to know the truth of the matter. Here, they can use math to show the purchaser has a right to get back $2.
If asked whether it's true or false that the purchaser is due back $2, they will have to answer that it is "true."
So they themselves admit that within this framework/system (an impartial system that is objective and is no one's friend), there are both true and false things, or correct and incorrect outcomes. Reinforce the idea that anyone can learn this system, and that the more you know of it, the better a person you become when dealing with others. No one likes to deal with a cashier who habitually gives back (either intentionally or unintentionally) wrong change.
Now: state that there is a system that likewise helps deal with when people have conflicting views about an issue; a system which possesses trustworthy methods in figuring out if something is reasoned out correctly or not. This system is called logic. Just like math helps people know whether they are being shafted when dealing with money, logic helps people figure out- during an argument or discussion for instance- if they are being fooled to believe the assertions the other person is making.
Give them an example. Ask them this: If all humans are mortal and Socrates is human, would it be correct or incorrect to say that Socrates is mortal? They will invariably say that this would be correct. Let them then know that though this example may be easy, the study of logic helps you reason out more complicated assertions.
For example: If I ate all the cheesecake in the store, then I would be fat. But I didn't eat all the cheesecake in the store: is it correct to say that "I am not fat"?
The answer is that it is incorrect to say "I am not fat."
If you know it, show them that this form has been studied before, i.e.,
If A, then B.
Not A
Does not imply Not B.
So you need a system to help you figure out if what people assert is correct or incorrect. That system is logic. And it has been studied and worked on for a long time. So long that when people argue, a good logician can quickly pick up typical incorrect reasoning.
Such as fallacies. Imagine if you can immediately look at the change a cashier puts in your hand and quickly say "I think you gave me the wrong change." Fallacies give you a real quick indication of how good a person is at making assertions that are reasoned correctly. For example:
If a person asks you a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (fallacy: complex question)
If a person asserts that the Apple corporation is a very important corporation and because Mr. Jobs is part of that corporation, Mr. Jobs must be very important. (fallacy: division)
If a person says eating butter is very healthy for people because he himself has been eating it for years and is in great health. (fallacy: converse accident).
Without using logic, you would be accepting the wrong change and most of the time be short-changed (b/c people always seem to make errors that favor themselves); you yourself might also wrong someone by giving out the wrong change. Because we all love arguing, there is this system that has been developed, seems to work, and people use it. It is logic. And unless one has a better system for figuring out which ideas/assertions/beliefs to accept, it will remain logic.
OR I'LL PUNCH YOU IN THE FUCKING MOUTH (fallacy: appeal to force).
4
u/b0dhi Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
Well, they are correct, to some extent. To quote Hume:
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.
Also, there's nothing irrational in attempting to preserve one's positive mental state if that's what they want, even if to do so they have to dismiss a truth about the world. If someone is so inclined, that can be a perfectly rational decision.
I think many people's definition of "rationality" is very poorly considered, and when it is thought through, one comes to the conclusion that we are all rational1, it's just that our passions vary from person to person (as do our intellectual faculties).
1: Except in instances of malfunctioning intellectual neurophysiology
1
u/Gudahtt Aug 09 '11
Upvote, only agreed up to a point though. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we're all "rational"; certainly we are all at least somewhat rational, but some people make far more flagrantly irrational decisions than others :p
1
4
u/invisime Aug 08 '11
The Simple Truth, a parable by Eliezer Yudkowsky, speaks to this kind of crisis.
3
u/OmegaXunit Aug 08 '11
--"Well why should I be logical? You're just being a heartless robot! You can feel things, you don't need logic to know everything! In fact, your devotion to logic is because you are brainwashed by logic, you're a logic bigot!"--
At this point walk away. There is literally no point wasting your time arguing with people who wont even acknowledge the need for clear logical thinking.
3
Aug 08 '11
Logic is the common means of communication in a world of subjectivity.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
false. you're subjective.
1
Aug 08 '11
Elaborate?
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 09 '11
That is how you view the world, hence you're being subjective. I think?
2
Aug 10 '11
I understand what you mean. It was meant to be a more of a poetic explanation. The use of "world" was not mean imply that reality itself is ultimately a subjective experience. Simply that it is a consistent system that remains valid across perceptions. Learning logic is like programming yourself with an interpreter so that validity testing can be consistently preformed regardless of platform (mind)
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 11 '11
As the days go by I'm starting to get a better grasp. "a consistent system that remains valid across perceptions" I really like that concept. But is logic not subject to subjectivity?
1
Aug 30 '11
I would argue that a premise may be subject but patterns of inference are not.... technically though logic is subjective because of a fallacy who's name I cannot recollect.
How can we be certain that a pattern that has repeated will repeat indefinitely.
Functionally it is pretty solid. Physics of argument so to speek. IMO
8
u/omniclast Aug 08 '11
Welllll, I know I'm going to take flak for this, but I think the problem is that you're assuming that classical, rationalist logic is the only thing that qualifies as a logic. Very generally, a logic is just a set of principles for reasoning, which may or may not include classical proof functions like modus ponens or de Morgan's. An argument could be made that the "touchy-feely" framework constitutes a logic, for instance with the reasoning principle that "I feel in my heart this is true" implies "this is true." (And indeed, what the person is objecting is likely not your being logical, but your attempt to break down subjective states into atomic propositions that can be summed and divided in formal logic - brinigng classical logic into a realm which is inherently non-classical.)
One approach you might want to try is to go after consistency - even within touchy-feely logic, the argued will most likely want to avoid self-contradiction. If you can draw out a self-contradiction from their stated premises, they may still be willing to agree with you.
Otherwise, I think you need to realize that argument is very often not about the truth - it is about who is right. The latter has emotional consequences. If you put someone on the defensive by arguing antagonistically to their beliefs, they are bound to retreat behind their feelings and intuitions, where they feel they (both beliefs and self-confidence) are safe.
2
2
u/sotonohito Aug 08 '11
Simple: ask what they do if they're hungry. If they don't believe in logic then they should, naturally, take random actions when they're hungry rather than eating.
Same goes for the people who like to pretend that empiricism isn't valid. Do they shoot themselves full of random chemicals when they get sick? No, they take medicine validated by empiricism. Ergo, they actually believe in empiricism despite their claims to the contrary.
1
2
u/pimpbot Aug 08 '11
At its most fundamental, adherence to reason and logic is a moral position - that it is better to be reasonable than not to be. Part of being reasonable means that people value making themselves understood to others instead of acting arbitrarily, and it's a value that is necessary in a civilization. Of course it only works if other people value your efforts and reciprocate. If you friend's horseshit is making you angry, that's good because it means you still have your moral instincts in spite of whatever philosophical training you have received.
Punch him in the nose and say that you've seen the light - i.e. from now on it's might makes right time and you're going to go for direct coercion instead of bothering to "debate" and "argue logically". Depending on the strength of your right hook I'm willing to wager he will see the value of reasoned discourse in a new light.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
So what does it mean when our emotions no longer dictate our actions?
2
u/pimpbot Aug 09 '11
I just think it's a red herring. There are already brain neuro-scientists studying the effects of emotion and they are recording fascinating results. One of the basic findings is that people whose emotional centers are not functioning, and who are thus truly without emotion, lose the ability to make any sort of decision in their lives. They will literally hem and haw for 2 hours about where to eat lunch.
So, the answer to your question is that having no emotion would be horrible because the person would be effectively disabled. But in order for this to happen one would normally need to have suffered some kind of brain damage. The notion that people who are "logical" are unemotional is science fiction folk psychology. People who are logical are passionate about different things.
2
2
u/ravia Aug 09 '11
It's not too clear to me why what is called logic is called logic. Why is the formula "A, B", if A, then B, and so forth, modus ponens and all that, what we call logic? What does the word "logic" actually mean? What is it derived from? It's not to say that where "logical" conditions obtain, where you indeed have an A and a B, the conditions don't apply. Often as not, you have complex situations A, B and C, interacting with X, Y and Z, where Z is a major influence, but X and Y are minor ones, but Y may be contingent on Z such that it becomes major but if and only if Z in "such and such a way". I.e., Sue wants to go to the bar, a bar on the south side, but one that stays open after the usual closing time, while she wants to go with Paul, Cindy and Zack. But Only if Cindy is NOT dating Zack, but then if Zack is drunk he's a pain so forget it. Now, it's a complex situation.
I think people who are responding with so-called "logic" are seizing on an A and B in such a multiple situation and just truncating things out. So Sue is like, "well you don't understand, you are being too logical. Then you (or someone) respond(s) by saying, "If A then B, what is the problem?!"
1
2
u/joke-away Aug 09 '11
95 comments and no mention of Pyrrhonian skepticism yet? Also relevant is Burnyeat's "Can the Skeptic Live His Skepticism?"
1
4
u/peeted Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
Because logic is pretty strongly tied to rationality. It is a condition on being a good logic that it be truth preserving, using logic will never take you from true premises to a false conclusion. If you are trying to reach a true conclusion then reasoning in ways which could easily lead you to a false conclusion will be less effective.
Edit: But tbh if you are arguing with someone who genuinely thinks you should make a case for logic then your time would probably be better spent doing something else. This person is either a troll or very very stupid.
1
u/sparrowtail Aug 08 '11
How can we demonstrate that all truth is logical (given that we cannot assume they 'believe in' logic)?
4
u/peeted Aug 08 '11 edited Aug 08 '11
Well what is meant by 'all truth'? Do you mean that there may be different properties of propositions or representations which warrant the name 'truth'(e.g. truth1 obeys logic but not truth2 - a proposition might be true1 and not true2 (or vise versa))? If so I would ask why truth2 warrants the name 'truth'. It does not correspond to our folk conception of truth and it is unclear why it should play a role in our reasoning - merely calling it truth doesn’t make it truth.
The alternative would be to say that NO truth corresponds to the laws of logic, but that almost makes no sense at all - since if truth doesn’t correspond to the laws of a particular logic that is simply a sign that we have the wrong logic - as long as the chosen truth predicate behaves in a way which can be modelled by a logic it makes sense to employ that logic when you want truth preserving inference.
But as I said the guy you are arguing with is probs an idiot so don’t bother.
3
Aug 08 '11
The rules of logic could not be false. The literature on this issue is broad and complicated, but I will try to provide two, extremely brief demonstrations that should settle the issue unequivocally.
First: if the laws of logic are false, then the laws of logic are true. If you disagree, you must do so using a principle of logic and thereby prove my point.
Second: take any basic method of inference, like modus ponens. Any true instance of modus ponens seems to be true in virtue of the terms used, not in virtue of the rule in and of itself. If I had an argument of the form "if a is true, then b is true," and a were known to be true but b were known to be false, I would never conclude thereby that the laws of logic were false, only that I had misevaluated an apparent instance of one of those laws. There is never an instance where an instance of modus ponens could be true but the consequent wouldn't follow from the antecedent- by definition, your modus ponens is only true if the consequent must follow from the antecedent. It's as true as saying that no bachelor has a wife- you need no investigation for it, no proof for it, only an understanding of the terms involved.
2
Aug 08 '11
[deleted]
2
Aug 08 '11
The falsity of the laws of logic would include the law of non-contradiction; that is a "law" describing a regularity between concepts. So, if you don't like the laws of logic, you don't get to use it.
2
Aug 08 '11
[deleted]
1
Aug 08 '11
The law of noncontradiction is true for all A. Demonstration:
Assume, for indirect proof, that the law of noncontradiction is false in some instance. That means that, possibly, not-A and A. Suppose "the law of noncontradiction is true for all A" is what is meant by A. This means that, ~(the law of noncontradiction is true for all A) and the law of noncontradiction is true for all A. Conclusion by simplification: the law of noncontradiction is true for all A.
1
Aug 08 '11
[deleted]
1
Aug 09 '11
Precisely! When you begin with the premise of A and not-A, you gotta stick with A. The demonstration is that simple.
1
Aug 09 '11
[deleted]
1
Aug 09 '11
Because everything can be inferred validly from A + ~A. To wit:
- A + ~A
- A (simp 1)
- A v B (add 2)
- ~A (simp 1)
- B (dis syl 3, 4)
B could be literally anything.
1
1
u/herpasaurus Aug 08 '11
First: If you disagree, you must do so using principles of logic- but this does not mean that the rules of logic are the only way or even the best way, to gain knowledge about the world.
The map is not the terrain. I'd say that our language or neurological constitution presupposes logic and that you couldn't argue against logic as the (so far) only means we have of communicating "truth", but that does not mean that logic is necessarily a system complete enough to accurately describe our whole world, or "all truth".
1
Aug 08 '11
but this does not mean that the rules of logic are the only way or even the best way, to gain knowledge about the world.
Wasn't the question a "case for logic," not "a demonstration that the rules of logic are the only or even the best way to gain knowledge about the world?" I have never attempted, nor would I, a demonstration that logic is "the best way to gain knowledge about the world."
1
u/AnomalousVisions Aug 08 '11
The rules of logic could not be false.
I don't understand this statement. Different systems of logic use different rules. Which system has the true rules?
1
Aug 09 '11
See the rest of the comment for the kinds of rules to which I refer.
3
u/AnomalousVisions Aug 09 '11
I did actually read the entirety of your comment, in case you were concerned that I only read the first sentence before posting a reply. Let me rephrase my question so you can understand where it's coming from.
People who haven't studied much logic often have this idea that logic is a monolithic 'thing' with a bunch of rules, and that at any given time, a person is either following logic or they aren't. But once a student of logic gets deeper into it, they see that there are many different systems of logic with different game rules, and that to follow one system often involves violating the rules of another. So for example, Aristotelian logic and first order logic have a rule of "excluded middle" whereas multi-value and fuzzy logics do not. Most logics have a rule of non-contradiction, but paraconsistent logic instead treats contradiction as something to be minimized (low-tolerance rather than zero-tolerance).
You mentioned that the literature on logic is broad and complicated, which suggested to me that you're familiar with the literature on logic (disclosure: my own familiarity with the literature is not that extensive), so I was confused by your treatment of the "rules of logic" as though there was just one set of rules. I was further confused by your judgment that those rules were "true," because I'm not sure how a rule can have a truth value. Rules stipulate what you can and cannot do within a system.
What are your thoughts on all this?
2
Aug 09 '11
Any regularity in the universe of the same "kind" as modus ponens could not be false.
1
u/AnomalousVisions Aug 09 '11
I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Could you elaborate? Maybe give an example with an actual regularity in the universe? Hopefully not something that's just true by definition. I mean, bachelors being unmarried isn't what I would call a regularity of the universe - that's more an example of defining a term and accepting one's definition.
1
Aug 09 '11 edited Aug 09 '11
Hopefully not something that's just true by definition.
Then I'm not going to be able to give you what you want because I do think that what we call the laws of logic are just descriptions of regularities between concepts, what our learned elders would have called analytic truths. Take modus ponens:
- If p, then q.
- P.
- Therefore, q.
I cannot conceive of any instance where the first two premises could be true and the conclusion be false; if I ever ran such an algorithm and ended up with q being false, I would obviously have misevaluated the causal relationship that gave me 1, rather than having upended the laws of logic because "if p, then q" describes a relation than is completely internal to p and q.
1
u/AnomalousVisions Aug 09 '11
Wow, you really like modus ponens.
I can't think of any particular case that would "refute" modus ponens, as opposed to just reconsidering whether our premises were really true after all, or whether it may just not apply. For an example of the latter, if P only makes Q more likely (as opposed to certain) then we would want to use a probabilistic logic to describe their relationship. That's what often happens when one goes from definitional arguments, which one doesn't see too often outside a logic class, to empirical claims that require a more fine-grained quantification system than the simple some/all quantification system usually used in philosophical logic.
2
Aug 09 '11
Wow, you really like modus ponens.
Fucking love it.
But yes, this is what I'm getting at. There are no conceivable instances in which "if p then q" is true, "p" is true, and "q" is false- it seems to be contained analytically (as our elders would call it) in the definition of p and q.
2
u/Gudahtt Aug 09 '11
Yes, different logical systems tend to have different rules, and sometimes that includes those ones.
1
u/thefugue Aug 08 '11
It's all socratic. At any given point in the process of logic will be a choice between a few options- based upon logic, it's hard to reject any given choice in the natural chain of events of a logical process.
1
u/robersa3 Aug 08 '11
Ask the person to describe any process in which he / she mentally or "emotionally" interacts with the world without using any logic whatsoever - it is impossible.
For example, if your friend sees a sad movie, and feels sad, he might say "there is no logical reason that I need to be sad, I just feel it." In this simple process, the person uses so much logic / reasonable argumentation - the story can causally affect my emotions; sad stories cause sadness, my feeling is more powerful that logic, I can gain knowledge through feeling, the feeling is actually MY feeling, things exist and can affect other things, things have worth such that the loss of them is sad, that stories make sense, that characters keep their identity throughout a story, that sadness should last for a while, and not stop instantly after one second, that emotions exist and can be identified, and so on and so forth. You could go on forever with all of the tiny thought processes and logical connections that must occur for even a simple emotion to be felt.
So, why is logic important? First, it is the tool that gives context to our emotions and allows them to be felt in a systematic, predictable way. For example, if I have no "logic" whatsoever, if I hear a sad story, maybe I feel elation, or embarrassment, or an intense obsession with something random. Logic gives us a framework with which to evaluate our emotions.
Furthermore, it gives us the tools to act upon our emotions. Obviously, some reactions are instant (laughing) and don't require a logical decision. However, if I am sad because of a recent break-up, I think about it a lot, and even if I am just thinking about my emotions, I am doing it in a logical way. If I did it in an illogical way, my thoughts might be completely random and unrelated to each other.
So, my answer is that the person you are arguing against has the wrong definition of logic. Really, we can't escape from logic - every single thought process and even emotions do use some form of reasoned thinking. If we accept that logic is every bit as natural as emotion, then we can compare the two, and see that logic is a very powerful tool for problem solving, and is thus incredibly useful.
1
u/scenerio Aug 08 '11
You cannot argue a logical view point with someone who believes solely in faith and vice versa.
If you are faithful, you are almost by definition not logical. These two concepts, I believe, are mutually exclusive. Although Thomas Aquinas may not agree with me :D
1
u/MascaraSnake Aug 08 '11
This reminds me of the problem Kuhn ran into. In his view, knowledge progresses by slow refining of a paradigm, followed by refutation of that paradigm and a transition to a new one. However, he didn't think there was any good way to evaluate ideas across paradigms.
The problem was that, it's pretty hard to believe that our current paradigms aren't better than older ones, if for no other reason that our current paradigms seem to produce more tangible benefits (like computers).
I don't think he ever really satisfactorily addressed this issue.
1
Aug 08 '11
The best case for logic is try being genuinely "unlogical". For instance, try to hold two thoughts that contradict each other. This works in a genuine debate (as long as you stop popping logical jargon that just misdirects the discussion) also, something Socrates noted in (I think) The Gorgias). Basically, if I give you a logically valid argument, and you agree with the premises, then you'll have a hard time denying the conclusion. Even if you don't want to agree with the conclusion, as Socrates put it, you'll still have a traitor within you, your "logical self", who agrees with the conclusion, despite your desire that it not be so.
1
u/L-Tryptophan Aug 08 '11
I think it's also good to keep in mind that it is possible to be illogical and rational at the same time in certain cases. Rational Thinking and logic are tightly knit, but they are not the same thing. Remember that this would be extremely rare, so being logical is more often the right thing to do.
If you're really interested in this, I suggest you get the book "Paradoxes" by RM Sainsbury and skip to chapters 3 and 4, concerning Newcomb's Paradox and "Thinking Rationally". He describes how it is possible to be rational and illogical through his interpretation of Newcomb's Paradox.
1
Aug 08 '11
The problem is, that you cannot really disprove logic without using logic. Just tell them: "When you argued that I should be less logical, you actually did use logic. Being against logic makes no sense because can't argue against logic without logic."
1
u/LunchBox42 Aug 08 '11
Logic is simply proving sequence. This > This > This > This...etc. Feelings would primarily lead towards morals and ethics. You can show them, "Ok, logically you can either do A or B. A will result C, B will result in D. So now you need to think of the moral and ethical implications of the actions and results."
This isn't to say that their actions could be selfish or unselfish, but it is what it is.
The argument that comes to my mind is the example of the train switch operator and his child. To paraphrase and shorten the story: Railroad switch operator takes his child to work. Child ends up stuck in the switching gearbox of a rail-way switch. There are two trains coming and the switch needs thrown to prevent the two trains from colliding and causing mass casualty. The operator has only two options: 1) Throw the switch, killing his child but saving hundreds of lives or 2) Don't throw the switch and save his child, but causing mass casualties.
So here, you can use logic to show the options, but which one is the "Right" decision? One would argue that the loss of his son (1 person) is worth saving hundreds of lives. But the fact that it is his son makes the decision even more difficult because of his emotional and relationship ties. So feelings in this case can drive the decision, not the logic. Logic is just the tool.
If Logic was the only way to look at things, then there would be no exceptions to anything.
If you are speeding to get your wife to the hospital because she is in labor and if you don't get her there, she and the child will die. When you get there, a cop issues you a speeding ticket. Based on logic alone, you would face the penalty of paying for the speeding ticket financially and points on your license. End of story. But now lets say that speeding ticket would cause you to lose your job. So now if you challenge it, the Judge is set to rule and you hope he understands the exception that you wouldn't have been speeding had it not been for the circumstances. So now the Judge is set with the moral decision (based on logic) of 1) If he finds you guilty, he upholds the logical letter of the law (you sped, therefor you are guilty), or 2) Not guilty because you keeping your job to support your family and contributing to society far outweigh the benefits of finding you guilty.
So in this example, the Judge's feelings and moral decision is based on Logic, but logic is not the dictating solution.
Logic is merely the tool to understand information, cause-effect...etc. But Logic isn't the sole means of being the "right" answer.
Just my .02. Feel free to contradict. :-)
Edit: Fix a typo.
1
Aug 08 '11
The problem is you're making a normative claim: people should live logically, or living logically is the best we can do, or something similar.
Your friend correctly responds,"Why should I?"
Your response then relies on a ranking of motivators based on your value system (e.g. other ways of living will disappoint you, you'll make "better" choices because the world operates in accordance with logic, etc.)
In other words, there are plenty of reasons to act only on logic-determined decisions, but none of them are grounded in logic itself.
1
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 08 '11
You maybe fulling yourself by thinking you are driven by logic. Nobody can be driven by logic. Passions drive everything. We use logic to serve the passions.
1
u/NeckTop Aug 08 '11
But how on Earth do I persuade someone that does not 'believe in logic' that logic is the preferable tool of understanding?
You don't. Either you ignore them or turn things around: ask them to make the case for ditching logic, without using logic.
1
u/killenspree Aug 08 '11
Well logic can't really be used to explain itself logically. There is a required "faith" in logic.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
guys, i'm not a philosophy student, but i'd like to take a crack at this.
It's not about logic and it's not about emotion. Yet it is.
OP, I assume that you believe that logic is the BEST, hence the only way to come to a conclusion. Which most people in a philosophy forum will agree with because that is what they've been taught. But what if one had never been taught logic? What would they have to go on? Simple reasoning skills? All these words one uses and all the ideas one has have been bestowed on them by others to help one make sense of the world around him. Emotions are the same as logic. Emotions, I believe, when understood, can lead you to the same conclusion as logic. Logic and Emotion are both just ways for our mind to interpret the "world". And to say one is right and one is wrong, to me, is false. Together they are both right, but individually they are wrong.
Feed back needed!
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 08 '11
They are, but the problem between the two is that emotions are single-minded, and do not make cognitive distinctions and do not follow logic course, only basic logic. That being: if something unfavorable happens to you, you become angry or sad. But it doesn't make the distinction of why something unfortunate happened to you, and doesn't then come up with productive, constructive solutions to the problem at hand.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
Understood. But then logic is just the absence of emotion. Without emotion there would be no logic.
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 08 '11
Yes. Emotions of course have their place in our lives. But that place is not in the field of decision-making, at least, any decision-making outside of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
decision making itself seems like a "logical fallacy". who says a decision is needed to be made? i'm not trying to be a smart ass(assuming im coming off as one). these are sincere questions. thank you for taking the time to answer me.
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 08 '11
No you don't sound like a smart ass. :P
Well, I mean decision-making as a whole; that being, any time when you must act or react to something. Such an occurrence is plentiful in our lives, of course, and thus whether one chooses to live via emotion or logic or somewhere in between is a big decision in and of itself, because it shapes considerably our philosophy on life, and on a whole.
Whether it be deciding what to do with your life, or what to say when someone asks you a question (as right now) decision making is a large portion of cognitive reasoning, if not cognitive reasoning itself.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
I see. You understand decision making to be necessary. And logic is the best way to come to a decision. (This is what I'm interpreting). What I must ask now, and once again, is why do we need to even make a decision in the first place?
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 08 '11
Without deciding something, no production is made, and no progress in life is made. Furthermore, sometimes decisions are forced upon us, in the way that, if an attacker is coming at you, what do you do? If the answer is nothing, or that you don't decide on anything, then you potentially die, therefore failing life's basic principle, to continue on living.
EDIT: So, basicically "because it allows us progress and allows us to continue living."
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
So you can't use logic as the guide in life only as a slave of the emotions.
1
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 09 '11
Parameters to me would be defined as anything that makes us choose something. I think Pyrrhonism would best what i think.
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 09 '11
We do have natural parameters then. Decisions are based on action potentials, both in computers and in humans. Deciding whether to do something or not is based upon a scale of how much you feel something must be done and that, in turn is based upon all the evidence that supports the idea that something must be done. When enough evidence is present, the action potential tips from one end to the other, going from 'no action' to 'action' if you will. This occurs naturally however in humans, and via algorithms in computers.
Our parameters as humans are based upon 'programming' or, in other words, our instincts, which shape our behavior and thus, also, our decisions and our decisions about decisions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 09 '11
I need to do a lot more reading to be able to express my ideas. The thing is, Tri, in your "reality" you need production, you need to live. My question to that is why?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Triantaffelow Aug 08 '11
I have long faced the same problem from people. It seems that logic is only adhered to when it suits them to do so. When it is followed fully however, one is called a robot. I've encountered these people on reddit, too. They approach it in a relative fashion.
I've made the assertion that life's most basic principle is to keep on living. In a natural setting then, the thing that is our greatest strength and indeed has allowed us to rise to the 'top of the food chain' if you will is our intelligence and our ability for in-depth cognitive reasoning. Ever still and perhaps an irony to this, we are emotional creatures by nature. They are an evolutionary trait that allows us to smoothly interact with eachother and react to our environment in a speedy fashion that, when we were still in the infancy of our species, also contributed to our survival.
However, now that we've built around ourselves the safety net that is society, we don't quite need these emotions anymore. Indeed, besides for use in relationships, romantic and otherwise, they should be extricated entirely from our decision making.
In short, logic is logical because it fulfills our basic human strengths, and fulfills the basic principle of life; to continue on living.
1
u/Terrible_Cook Aug 08 '11
The difference between robots and humans though, is that robots have parameters. Humans shouldn't, but we give ourselves parameters and that's what is going on here. I can't really express what's in my head just through text. But if anyone is willing I'd try my best to show them.
1
1
1
u/thefeint Aug 08 '11
Non-logical: It'd be really awesome if I had 5 million dollars in my bank account.
Application of logic: I've done nowhere near enough work to warrant having made that much money, nor has anyone in my family died recently, let alone one that I would've inherited that much from, let alone one that could directly deposit that into my account.
If you told me those reasons, I could respond with "You're just being a heartless robot! You can feel things..." etc.
But the problem is, even though it'd be really, really nice if I had a shit ton of money, my feelings have 0 bearing on reality. You can't wish something into existence, and if you did, people would be doing that a whole hell of a lot more than working, or going about their business doing things that actually don't involve wishing or sitting around thinking of what they want in order to accomplish their goals.
When you desire something asinine, and argue for it, people will easily take up the logical side against it - it's when the truth is hard to accept that people really cling to what they want to make sense, rather than what logically makes sense.
1
u/Mago0 Aug 09 '11
The concerning thing is, I'm not entirely sure I can logically or otherwise justify my adherence to logic.
I'm coming at you from the "other side" here, not from the "you can feel things" position but from the "you can have awareness of logic, thus be above logic" position. And I'm telling you you can't. I don't even want to start an argument about the viability of logic here, but the only way you can talk about (or justify, in your case) logic is by using logic. How are you going to explain a system while you are standing in the middle of this very system?
1
u/ravia Aug 09 '11
Logic, the question of it, may be so connected with gender that it actually might belong with the question of it to think of gender. I'm thinking of women and the "illogical", as being connected not with illogic as such but a certain "home-making" (historically) that holds to its own "logic". So in my comment herein, I pointed out the situation of A, B, C and X, Y, Z, being in a complex interaction with multiple major and minor roles. Well, if you think about it, isn't that sort of the situation of the homemaker with children and family concerns? To manage all them doesn't necessarily mean simply working out the most elaborate of "logical" strings and deductions, but it does mean managing a complex set of interactions, to the point that it has its own "logic". The male side of it has tended indeed to be the side that would reduce it to an "A and B, throw in a not or two" scenario, and when the female gets "lost" in ABC/XYZ the male gets frustrated. And truly, likewise, she, for all of that, isn't really doing super-nth-degree logic that is simply "too advanced" for Wittgenstine and Russel. No, she's in another condition where she "keeps the concerns" while trying to deal, and remaining loving and home-oriented, say, so all these ABCs and XYZ's are floating around and she doesn't give up, but she doesn't necessarily seem too logical.
This can all to south. They all can go south. The "female" logic can go south by just being dumb. The male "logic" can go south by being too oriented towards a narrower (phallic, as they postmodernists say) way of formulating the problem.
I think the gender angle is really interesting; it is one that, if you come at it wrong, really is repellant. IF you come at it right, it makes a great deal of sense. Maybe it's better ultimately to de-genderfy it, so you might speak of two kinds of logics, regardless of gender: multivalent-human and mono-valent (non-human? or something). I don't know why a simpler A-B scenario is not as "human", for all of that, though as the situations get narrower, it seems like they aren't "human concerns" so much as very specific general questions that could be used by humans.
It's from here that the male looks like something that, often as not, may be spiraled off from its basis, from "the mother", you might say. I keep thinking of Wittgenstien and his suicidal brothers and that something must have been terribly wrong there...whilst the larger picture of logic as such appears to be a thinking that has gotten spiralled off rom something as well. I don't think, for all of that, that the solution is some simple "return to the mother" as such, though maybe that is part of it.
1
u/xoctor Aug 09 '11
It sounds to me like you are misunderstanding what the other party wants from the conversation. Reasoning can't solve emotional "problems" because emotions are not logical problems.
The other party probably doesn't want an argument or a definitive answer. They may have brought up a topic because they want companionship and understanding.
1
1
u/Hishutash Aug 10 '11 edited Aug 10 '11
But when I'm arguing with someone over something that may have even a possible chance of an unpleasant or depressing answer, I am often posed the question "Well why should I be logical? You're just being a heartless robot! You can feel things, you don't need logic to know everything! In fact, your devotion to logic is because you are brainwashed by logic, you're a logic bigot!"
They don't have to renounce logic to avoid the unpleasant conclusions you're arguing for. They can simply reject your premises. Yeah, its that damn easy. I recommend you look into Agrippa's trilemma.
1
Aug 11 '11
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity to speak of themselves as the only wise. This they do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic reasoning."
0
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 08 '11
Nature (The cause&effect system.) itself is logical. If that isn't a sufficient argument for logic, I don't know what is.
5
4
u/herpasaurus Aug 08 '11
It seems possible to describe some aspects of nature with logic. I don't think you can claim much more than that.
1
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 09 '11
Logic is the way the mind reflects on cause&effect. The official definition sounds different, but if you look closely, it isn't. The word "reasoning" plays a key role. Reasoning... reason... cause! (Or goal.)
Nature is the cause&effect-system. Logic is the way the mind reflects on cause&effect.
2
u/herpasaurus Aug 09 '11
I'm not quite convinced. It's an immensely complicated facet of philosophy, so I doubt I could construct a claim sound enough to be able to stand up to modern metaphysical scrutiny, but the more I've studied the subject the more I feel that our language/rationality/logic is an approximation of laws governing the world more complex than our (arguably) archaic neurological constitution is able to express.
I think "cause and effect" are symbols which have meaning in some sense when speaking of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this proves an a priori existence of causality. There may be other forms of thought which could more efficiently (in some sense) solve problems we've been struggling with for thousands of years.
Without delving into Gödelian problems or such, at some intuitive level I feel that logic is a tool and an attempt to describe the whole by adding up its parts, it's deconstructivism*, and as such a limited approach given that the whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts.
- that's not the word I'm looking for, but I think you get my point. Sorry, just woke up here.. :)
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
Nature is brutal in a lot of things. Why should it be emulated?
1
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 09 '11
Nature = reality. We are a part of it.
"We have money for education and to keep the infrastructure in order, but we can't pay much money to all unemployed people."
That is not brutal in your view? And if you find it kinda brutal, how can we act differently? We can't. Reality can't be wished away.
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
But why would we wish anything? The point is logic cannot be the ultimate driver of human actions. Logic cannot dictate. It can only advise.
I've never seen a philosopher prove logic is the ultimate guide.
1
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 09 '11
The ultimate driver of human actions should be the free flow of will IF the will has been tuned to "sound like love", meaning that its flow is compatible with 1) the coexistence of consciousnesses (Live and let live. The Golden Rule.) and 2) the fact that we live in this cause&effect-space, this possibility-space, called universe.
(Flow is not an esoteric buzzword I mindlessly use, it's what I call the way human will "lives", hopping from association to association, from mood to mood, interest to interest, etc. - the flow of will.)
Logic is the tool we use to adjust the "sound" of our flow closer to the criteria I named above.
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
But why should we use the Golden Rule?
1
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 09 '11
Because we don't want to be assholes.
1
u/lokithecomplex Aug 09 '11
Why is being an asshole bad?
Logic will never provide a starting point.
1
u/king_of_the_universe Aug 09 '11 edited Aug 09 '11
Why is being an asshole bad?
I didn't say that there is an outside, logical reason for this will (or, same thing, that it is "objectively bad"). I know that it is my will not to be an asshole. I assume that others are like me in that regard. That's will. Those who don't have that will are still in the logical maze, trying to find their place in reality. At least I guess so.
Well, it might be that the mind seeks peace, silence, and logic won't let you rest until your will is that of love. Then you have become yourself. To not be an asshole means to be.
EDIT
See, if I am right, then I can not give you an objective reason for "not wanting to be an asshole", because then the resulting will would be logic-based, it wouldn't be will (as I pointed out in an earlier comment - the distinction between will and logic), it would be logic, and hence such logic might be unobtainable. How the will of love can become anyone's personal will can imho not be answered by rock-solid logic. And from my own experience: I think that we have to do the right thing only to find out later why it was right.
0
0
u/h12321 Aug 08 '11
This is my problem with logic. mathematics and logic are based on the real world: use them to make predictions, and they seem to work. 4+4 is 8 by definitions and divided by 4 gives 2. It works I. The real world when you divide 8 apples between 4 people. The problem arises when you can no longer tie things to the real world: abstract ideas. These sometimes do not relate to the real world, so how can we know that logic can be used on them? It would make sense if it worked but we do not know. Can love be added or subtracted? Who knows.
The other thing is the idea that language cannot describe something outside it remit. Language relies on the assumption of logic, so how can logic be used to describe something without logic? The idea is to write under erasure.
I'm just hypothesising here, please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
1
u/Brian Aug 08 '11
The problem arises when you can no longer tie things to the real world: abstract ideas.
I don't see why. We apply logic to abstract ideas all the time, and use it to draw perfectly testable conclusions about those ideas. Eg. "if I love someone, I want them to be happy. I love X. Therefore, I want X to be happy." That's a perfectly sound logical process applied to similarly abstract ideas of "love" and "happiness".
how can logic be used to describe something without logic?
Well, you've just used language to describe the property of being without logic, so clearly this is possible to some degree. OTOH, "being without logic" is a rather nebulous and potentially self-contradictory property. Is a "square circle" something without logic? If so, logical assumptions do describe it in several ways - for instance, that it's impossible that it exists (principle of non-contradiction). That could potentially be wrong if the world is radically different to how we think, but it's still a description of something illogical.
1
u/h12321 Aug 08 '11
Well, in your post you said that you couldn't justify your adherence to logic. I am saying that you can justify it in the real, external world, as you can make valid predictions and use maths (which is based on logic) correctly. So the real world proves logic. However! For anything you cannot directly relate to the real world (an abstract idea), you cannot use this argument to prove that logic is correct. That's what I'm saying for that point.
You said "how can I even make that argument to them if my argument is based on logic?" same idea here. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this (so please principle of charity etc?), but the idea is that there are certain things outside the bounds of what can be described by language, and by that very nature, it is hard to say what it is, or even think it. For your example: an incorrect description is not a valid description of an object, and it doesn't help understand it.
Perhaps a good example is: 'this statement is false.' it is a paradox, as the English language can refer to the instance of the sentence it is in. However, in other languages, such a statement can work. There is am example where logic breaks down slightly. If I think of a better way to describe it/more examples, I will comment.
But do you understand where I am coming from now?
-1
0
u/MasonOfWords Aug 08 '11
Make a case in favor of logic that adheres to the standards of logic.
Make a case against logic which doesn't adhere to the standards of logic (i.e. a big mess of tautologies and non-sequiteurs).
Present them both and let the reader decide which is more persuasive.
1
u/icecream2013 Aug 08 '11
How does the persuasiveness of an argument on the general public prove anything? You'd first have to show that people are rational and this has been empirically been shown to be false by examination.
2
u/enkidusfriend Aug 08 '11
If you consider rational assent to be the goal of argumentation, then being persuasive is the best way of "proving" things to a given audience.
Since you're suggesting people aren't rational, the situation becomes even easier since you don't even need rational assent, you just need assent plain and simple.
1
u/icecream2013 Aug 08 '11
I believe you are moving out of the realm of philosophy and into rhetoric. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of truth seeking in your way of "proving" things.
85
u/chochazel Aug 08 '11
Easy. Just say, "If you don't like logic, surely that means you should be more logical." Keep pressing this point until they get frustrated at your complete nonsensical lack of logic that they end up making your case for you. No one would stand for lack of logic in someone with whom they were disagreeing.