From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:31:01 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

     A big problem with this discussion is the definition itself of logic.  Alm
ost any human mind function could be thought of as logic.  There are different
and even contradictory theories as to what logic is, and different and contradic
           To fully know what logic is implies either fully understanding human
ity or fully understanding the world around humanity.  Obviously, we FULLY unde
rstand neither.  People complain when it is said logic is a limited form of rea
sonin, but I am pretty sure ALL forms of human thought, logic or otherwise, are
 quite limited.  Omniscence is well beyond a people who can't even understand s
ome things we know.

-------in msg xxx from Gil. M. S.
.. is a general crutch that many who tend not to think logically use,
which you may have noticed.
 [if they believe this "crutch," it would be illogical to think logically]
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".
[But what if these "reactions to stimulus have flaws/limits in them?]
..
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.
[whoever said not using logic implies relying soley on feelings?  ]
..                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.[I can't quite understand the gra
mmar of this sentence]
                     ... Those "other forms of reasoning" are just
more logic.  And they (it) can be done well or it can be done
[but not all logics are the same, and agree only partially with each other]
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.
[not using logic does not imply that one has chosen not to test their thinking
 it can mean they test their thinking differently.  the question is: Which met
hod of thinking is right at any given moment? is one method always better than
the rest?]
..
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.[Again... which mode of thinking is right? is an ill
ogical person more like a lazy athelete or an athelete who uses a PARTIALLY dif
ferent method of training?]
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....
claimed that I've seen are examples of probability and situations
involving emotion. [so does this mean emotion doesn't count? as something
 to be right about?]
                      ... 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. [true, but logic then fails to explain what "hur
t is and whyt other people sometimes inflict it on others.]

It's very difficult to reason with someone who has denied logical
reasoning.[If they think reason is wrong, then it would be illogical for them t
o reason with you.  You can't use logic to prove logic is correct. You must use
 experience or some method i don't know of.]
..
>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.[I can't, because some children ARE comforted
by a joke when in pain. ]
..
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".
[Even if the above is logical, is it CORRECT?  The above implies you have some
way of knowing"the probability ofit being representative of the general case"
without using your system of logic to support itself.Why do you think that the
 other forms of reasoning are automatically sloppy?]
GMS
------end of quote
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa