From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:00:34 GMT

In article <burt.724296175@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
> >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.
> 
> If you had read the rest of my post before commenting you would see that
> I go on to illustrate what I mean by the limitations of "logic".  If you
> use logic in the sense of an analytical philosopher then you're talking about
> a propositional calculus and we (should) all know how limited that is.  If
> you use logic in the sense of a continential philosopher (e.g., Heidegger)
> then you recognize that there are various forms of logics, the earliest
> being that of Aristotles syllogistic.  This is the source for propositional
> calculus, and is also extremely limited.  We also have modal logics, quantum
> logic, etc.  All are limited since all are developed as formal systems and
> hence suffer the limitations of all formal systems.  If you go on to
> dialectical logic you get different possibilities, and different limitations
> but dialectics is also limited.
> 
> >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".
> 
> Read David Hume, Treteis on Human Understanding.  We can never attain certainty
> via reason.

I think that's pretty obvious to everyone.  And you'll see that your
reference to being able to react to ambiguity is referred to in my
comments above, as well as many previous posts.  Further, your contention
that a proper tool for a proper application is a good policy has been
discussed before and I think we're in agreement.  The point is still that
"gut" reactions are not always correct reactions, and "gut" reactions
are usually partially based on experience.  Experience bears examination
to get the most out of it and improve future "gut" reactions when those
are appropriate.
> 
> >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.
> 
> You're not talking about logic now, you're talking about "common sense"
> reasoning.

I think you'll agree that if a formal definition of logic is what you
choose to use, "common sense" is comparatively informal.  And I tend
not to use the term for that reason, and for the reason that many 
of the most irrational statements I've ever heard begin with a reference
to the term.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Here the basic assumption is an a priori, we do empathize--unless we
> develop defensive structures to not do so, and attempts to minimize
> others pain are an automatic reaction.  All your talk about this being
> the logical thing to do given a certain assumption is post hoc.  What
> if you happen to be sadistically inclined?  Is it then logical to
> attempt to maximize others pain?

Yes.  Given that goal.  But obviously that goal may very well be deemed
by others to be inappropriate, and it may be their goal to interfere
with it.  Luckily, most don't have that goal, or at least purport not
to have it.  The definition of a goal is tricky, but at least we can
take responsibility to define our own.
> 
> >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.
> 
> If you refer to myu original posting you'll see that I was not separating
> logic, I was puting it in its place, a very Aristotelean thing to do.
> Logic is not a _kind_ of reasoning, it is a _tool_ of reasoning.  There
> _is_ a distinction.  And there are many different kinds of logic.

Yes, I agree that using the term "logic" to refer to the formal systems
of logic would support this.  But I was not.
> 
> >Saying that "logic" itself is "more limited than other forms or
> >reasoning" is nonsense.  Those "other forms of reasoning" are just

Remember, this is correct in relation to your use of the term.  It
appears to me that you understood what I referring to, or at least
you do now.

> >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.
> 
> As already emphasized, there are different kinds of logic.  Please be
> specific when you state what you mean by the term.  Do you mean the "Laws of
> Thought" which the Scholastics used to formulate Aristotlean logic?
>      1.  Law of Identity: A thing is equal to itself (A=A)
>      2.  Law of Contradiction: Nothing is equal to anything other than

Apparently what you want to call "commone sense" is what I am calling
"logic".  Make the appropriate substitutions, and we agree.

> itself.  (A is not B)
>      3.  Nothing is equal to both of two distinct things (Law of the Excluded
> Middle).
> If that is what you mean by logic, (and these three laws are foundational for
> any of the formaal logic which is done today) then you are talking about a very
> limited system of thinking.
> 
> >>Logic is a tool of thought, and there are different logics which apply
> >>in different circumstances.  Somebody who claims that "logic" is the
> >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
> 
> >It's very difficult to reason with someone who has denied logical
> >reasoning.
> 
> I didn't deny logical reasoning.  Professionally I'm a mathematician,

Oh.  It sounded very much like you did.  But now that I see what your
definitions are, I understand your point.  I hope mine is clear as
well.

> I like logical reasoning.

Me too.  It's keen.

> But I also recognize its limits.

I've discussed this endlessly, and I also believe that logic and emotion
must be kept in their respective place (personal soapbox topic).  But
I believe, based on observation, that emotion is overused, used pre-
maturely, and relied on without examination, far too often.
> 
> >>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.

Well, what I'm saying is that I would enjoy your posting some
more detailed information on this.  Particularly as it relates to
your reference to Hume, who I found particularly enjoyable.

> >Yes, I can see the logic in this.
> 
> But can you act in the moment to give comfort?

This again relates to what I was saying about the need for generalizations,
and yes, I've been known to beat that to death as well.
> 
> Hum, so analogical reason ing is just "sloppy"?  Again, since I don't know
> what you mean by logic it's hard to comment.  But you might do some reading

Well, I have to disagree here at last, since what you've typed says you
now do.

> on shamanistic and magical forms of thinking just to expand your horizons.
> And again, logic is not a form of reasoning, it is a tool for reasoning,
> and there are other tools as well.  Please be clear about that.
> 
> >GMS
Now that we both understand what our intended purposes of the term
"logic" are, there should be no problem.  It appears that you understand
my points, and are not disagreeing with them, but with the use of the term.

I have no problem with that, but be aware that your formal logic methods
are not necessarily equivalent to what I or what most people use for the
term.  Finally, I did read your post, but am merely taking issue, still,
with what I consider the overuse of "gut" feelings to justify so much, and
if I am to assume you've read any of my previous posts, you know my position
on the use the human mind puts generalization to, and that I think it
is relied on too much.  And causes many of the social problems we have
today.  Saying that logic is not necessary because of the limitations of
particular formal logics is in itself an overgeneralization, as I'm
sure you'll agree.  I would say that overuse of emotion is more of
a problem than overuse of any logic.  Emotion tends to be the default
in most cases, rather than the reverse, contrary to what appears to
be popular opinion.

GMS