From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:53:31 GMT

In article <burt.724381600@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>[lots of stuff deleted]

Ain't that the truth.  I've got to get more picky about my inclusions.
Anyway, I'm assuming you're responding to me.  You might want to include
an attribute line at least.
>
>I'm not sure how you got from my statements about limitations of logic
>to assuming that I'm supporting the idea that we all go on our gut feelings.

I'm rather sensitized to that point of view, and tended to err on the side
of caution, not allowing that interpretation support.  Yes, I do hope
no one (or at least fewer) supports that view, even though it sounds
very PC to some.

>And from your last post I'll substitute rationality for logic since for me

Excellent.

>at least logic has a very specific technical meaning.  Perhaps it was my
>reference to empathetical reasoning...  But just because I say that under
>certain conditions empathy is not only valid as a form of reason, but is
>to be prefered doesn't mean that I'm pushing universal emotionalism over
>a reasoned life.  My favorite example of empathetical reasoning is in
>Jonas Salk's (sort of) autobiography where he says that when he was young
>he use to imagine that he was a virus in order to develop some (empathetical)
>understanding for the way viruses worked.  Scientific work us suppose to be

Yes, I found that interesting as well.  I've posted many other articles
regarding that very thing.  In particular, its value in human survival,
but I think we're in strong agreement on the concept of proper tool
for the proper task.

[....]
>completely rational yet if one investigates the way scientists actually work
>one finds that there is an interconnected blend of empathy, analogy, and
>analysis.  Analysis is usually what is thought of as being "logical",
>however, and so scientists don't talk much about the other things, except
>with each other.  So the question is not which form of reasoning is "right"
>but rather how to use all to gain a complete understanding.

I would also offer up the idea of Janusian thinking -- entertaining
two apparently contradictory concepts simultaneously -- to solve a
problem.  An example was Einstein's idea of an object being in motion
and motionless at the same time -- relativity.  Of course, I would contend
that since the two concepts appeared contradictory and were then reconciled,
that it seemed illogical only because the logic wasn't originally understood.

>
>And as far as gut feelings go, one can trust gut feelings only to the
>extent that a) one has mastered the basics and subtlities of a field
>(which could be a non-academic field such as politics, etc.,); and

As for the politics example, I think much of politics works because
people are not thinking rationally.  But I agree with your point.

>b) has learned enough about ones own ego structures to leave them out
>of the picture--we don't get much accuracy when ego desires and/or fears
>gum up the machinery.  One can also base reasoning on asthetic

[interesting stuff deleted]

>altered things to agree with experiment, because "It is better to have beauty
>in your equations than to have them agree with experiment."  Not to
>criticize either approach, but one could say that Dirac (as Einstin)
>held a perhaps "illogical" faith in the elegance and simplicity of
>nature, while Schrodinger (and Heisenberg, Bohr, etc.) looked more to the
>"logical" process of empirical verification.

I would say that if you have no reason not to do something that you
find pleasurable, go for it.  If Dirac thought that an elegant equation
might have a greater long-range value (e. g., if he thought that the
inaccuracy might be due to experimental or measurement flaws, and that
the underlying system to be described was, in fact, elegant), it might
be reasonable to take his approach.
>
>Anyway, off to warmer climates for the holidays,
>Merry Christmas (or, have a fun time off, or Joyful
>Equinox, etc.)

Happy Time Off From Work is what my culture calls it.

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa