From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:31:06 GMT

In article <burt.724220141@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>There is a flaw in the idea that intelligent people tend to be more
>logical, and hence will accept atheism more easily on the grounds that
>there is no _logical_ proof in the existance of God.  The flaw is that
>logic, as we tend to use the word, is a very limited form of thinking.

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "we", but in general, your
assumption of logic being a limited form of thinking is incorrect,
and is a general crutch that many who tend not to think logically use,
which you may have noticed.  

The fact is that the human mind has developed the ability to generalize
its reactions to stimuli due to a lack of knowledge.  Obviously, the
lack of knowledge of every particular instance of a given set of stimuli
is just due to the lack of ability or practicality to just remain
neutral on everything until we are certain.  I think that's what you're
referring to, not any flaw in "logic".

If a person has encountered a certain situation during their life and
found that a certain result is prevalent, they will react in a certain
way in the future.  Saying for certainty that the same result will
occur is impossible.  Some are conditioned today to say that acting
in accordance with the assumption that the same will happen is
"generalization" or "stereotyping" or "evil", because that is politically
correct, but the fact of the matter is that this "incorrect" reasoning
is a natural outgrowth of evolution and survival.  The fact that it can
be misused to impractical results and can be to the detriment of others
is merely a human failing that should be recognized and minimized as
much as practical.

However, these reactions are based on logic.  There is no "mystery
emotion" or "thinking with the soul" that makes this happen.  Trying
to minimize others' pain is a logical thing to do when the basic
assumption is that you empathize or sympathize with others' feelings.

Separating logic from other kinds of reasoning is impractical and
itself illogical.  Choosing to have "faith" in something if you have
little or no contrary evidence, or, for practicality's sake, not
having this "faith" is less useful for you than having this "faith",
is completely logical.  As is the reverse.

Saying that "logic" itself is "more limited than other forms or
reasoning" is nonsense.  Those "other forms of reasoning" are just
more logic.  And they (it) can be done well or it can be done
poorly (that is, in other words, not done).  All thinking should
stand the test of logic.  If the individual chooses not to test
their thinking, then that should be red flag for others that this
person is choosing not to think.

>Logic is a tool of thought, and there are different logics which apply
>in different circumstances.  Somebody who claims that "logic" is the
>standard of intelligent thought is in much the same position aws a

Logic is the standard against which reasoning is evaluated.  One can be
intelligent and illogical and unintelligent and logical.  One can be a great
athlete and act lazily or be incompetent in a particular activity, and one can
be a poor athlete and act energetically, or be more skilled than the
athlete in that activity.

Now, claiming that there are forms of reasoning that are not logical,
and problems for which logic is less well suited, it begs the question
as to what a problem like that would be.  Most of these that have been
claimed that I've seen are examples of probability and situations
involving emotion.  But note that although a person can't absolutely
know if a bear is in a cave, but avoiding the cave because one might
be, is entirely logical.  And note that the example given of soothing
a child who has hurt himself is a logical reaction because the parent
has a goal of minimizing suffering and knows what the reaction of the
child will be to the soothing.  It doesn't take Enrico Fermi to
know what the logical reactions to these situations are.  

Saying that there is some "better" way to react to a situation than
logic is merely throwing out the notion of responsibility, or merely
doesn't want to be bothered with examing their actions.  And that
reaction itself may be, in some situations, entirely logical.  I 
may have a reaction to someone shouting in my ear of jumping.  After
the fact, it does me little good to "analyze" this reaction unless
I have some other goal, such as avoiding having the shit scare out of
me next time.

The problem is that far too many problems are addressed like that.
"I have a 'higher' form of reasoning.  I think with my heart/soul/gut.
Only machines need to be logical."  Blah, blah, blah.  The message is,
"Leave me alone, I don't want to be bothered with examing my conclusions
or reasoning."  Thinking deserves to be examined much more than it is.

It's very difficult to reason with someone who has denied logical
reasoning.

>carpenter who claims that all construction problems can be solved with
>a hammer.
>The proto-Indo-European root for reason is _ar_ (also, interestingly,
>the root for art) which has the meaning of "to fit together."  Reason
>is how we fit together a personal and social view of the world.  The
>tools used in this construction are logics.  One such logic is formal
>logic, the modern descendent of Aristotelean logic.  But this logic
>by itself does not fit reality since it is timeless--the Law of
>Contradiction forbids change.  Another logic is Hegelian dialectics.
>This deals with continual change, but cannot deal with permenance and
>the existance of limits (thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis sequences are
>endless).  A third logic, called trialectics, was developed by the
>modern philosopher Oscar Ichazo.  This deals with cycles of change
>and permenance.  And we're still only talking about analytical
>reasoning.  There is also analogical and empathetical reason.
>One kind of intelligence, it seems to me, deals with facility in
>weilding the tools, and this is what most intelligence tests measure.
>Another kind of intelligence relates to the intuitive recognition of
>when each tool is appropriate in the moment of experience.  It's all

You might want to show how these contradict each other, assuming
this is a different definition of logic than I'm referring to.

>very well to be a verbal master of brilliant puns, but when the child
>stubs her toe she's not looking for a witty response...

Yes, I can see the logic in this.

>On the basis of formal ligic there is no possibility of proving (or disproving)
>the existance of a God.  We can't even prove the consistency of ordinary 
>arithmetic.  So the only reasonable (in the larger sense) attitude is
>suspension of judgement.  That gives time for other forms of reasoning
>to come into play.
>bv

Each person has to (or should or might, depending on how important they
think their conclusion is to their life and those of people around
them) evaluate the data available, the probability of it being representative
of the general case, and the logic of their reasoning.  Then they should
evaluate the practical value of the possible conclusions, since most
would admit that there is no way to absolutely determine which is correct.

There is nothing illogical about the above.  It is also logical to
say that there are other forms of reasoning aside from logic.  Those
are known as "illogical", or, in common parlance, "sloppy".

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa