From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:22:55 GMT
 <burt.724220141@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> <1992Dec13.153106.20186@cbnewse.cb.at
Distribution: na

>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.

>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.

>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?

>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.

>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.

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
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
>>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.

No, logic is a tool for reasoning.  HITLER came up with a "logicsl" solution
to the jewish question--we consider him a monster not because of his logic
but because of his presuppositions which went into his "logical" reasoning.
If reasoning is not logical (whatever you might mean by that term, I will
take it as meaning that a line of argument follows from the axioms and theorems
of a logic which has been agreed to by all parties to a question) then we will
reject it as inconsistent, but if our reasoning is consistent we still must
evaulate it by other standards.  That is, we get into values and ethics.

>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.

Well, let's see, here is a perfectly logical argument:
     Socrates is a corruptor of youth.
     Corruptors of youth should be killed by making them drink Hemlock.
     Therefore, Socrates should be killed by being made to drink Hemlock.
Here is another, taken from Doris Lessing's beautiful book "The Sentimental
Agents":  Certain women in the middle ages were accused of witchcraft.
On the basis of the accusation they were imprisoned and tortured until
then confessed.  They were then burned at the stake.  Then their familes
were required to pay for the wages of the torturers and the wood used in
their burning.
I get the impression that you are using the term "logic" with no clear
understanding of what it means other than your own presupposition that
it means rationality--which it does not.  All forms of reason, and the tools
which they employ, are limited.  The secret is to be aware of when a particular
form of reasoning is appropriate and when it is not, and to be able to apply
that which is appropriate in context.  But this is a matter of a persons
level of consciousness, not of their rationality.

>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.

Saying that one must always be logical is a way of avoiding the responsibility
of being a conscious entity in a world of uncertainty.  It is also a great
way to paralize ones action by stopping to think: what's the "logical" thing
to do?

>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.

Note that I never said anything about not examining conclusions or behavior.
I simply pointed out that there are many different tools for carrying out
such an examination, and that what is usually termed logic, a derivative
of Aristotle's syllogistic, is a very limited tool of one form of reason.

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

I didn't deny logical reasoning.  Professionally I'm a mathematician,
I like logical reasoning.  But I also recognize its limits.

>>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.

They don't contradict one another since each has a different range of
application.  One of the dangers of allowing ones thought to be dominated
by Aristotelean logic is the danger of falling into dogmatic either/or
thinking (coming out of the law of excluded middle...)  All these various
forms of reasoning and their associated logics compliment each other.  Would
you ask a carpenter to explain how a hammer, saw, level, screw driver, and
masons trowel "contradicted" each other?

>>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.

But can you act in the moment to give comfort?

>>On the basis of formal ligic there is no possibility of proving (or disprovin
g)
>>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.

The question is what tools are to be used in this evaulation.  How much
weight is to be given to a gut feeling?  Are there analogues situations?
Do conclusions form a consistent whole?  If there are contradictions how
can they be dealt with?  Reasoning addresses all of these questions, but as 
I've been saying, there is more to reason than just logic.

>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".

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
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