LOGIC: Current alternative views on our ordinary logical sense

[Speakpigeon]

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

 

[fast]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

Horatio Parker was here too!

 

[rousseau]

Logical concepts are the grammar, knowledge is the material with which to manipulate using logical concepts. Additional logical concepts can arise from the integration of different pieces of knowledge.

So.. logically, this means we can infer a few things:

1) Someone's 'logical sense' as you put it is tightly coupled with how much they know, as the application of logic requires knowledge
2) The breadth of someone's internalised logical concepts is also tightly coupled with how much they know, as their creation requires knowledge
3) The amount that someone knows is tightly coupled with how intelligent they are, because it takes intelligence to acquire knowledge
4) So this implies that our 'logical sense' comes from being innately intelligent
5) To be 'intelligent' in this way means 'problem solving skill'. People who are good at solving problems are good with logic

At least that's what's... logical to me

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logical concepts are the grammar, knowledge is the material with which to manipulate using logical concepts. Additional logical concepts can arise from the integration of different pieces of knowledge.

Yes, I broadly agree with that.

So.. logically, this means we can infer a few things:

1) Someone's 'logical sense' as you put it is tightly coupled with how much they know, as the application of logic requires knowledge

Yep.

However, most people possess some knowledge, usually enough of it to allow them to survive in their ordinary environment. And most people have, broadly, the same kind of knowledge, especially knowledge relative to what kind of world we live in. That kind of knowledge will usually be acquired progressively but starting from as soon as the brain starts to be operational. This is how I would expect what I call our sense of logic to be formed in all of us.

2) The breadth of someone's internalised logical concepts is also tightly coupled with how much they know, as their creation requires knowledge

Yes. It seems pretty clear different people may have quite different abilities as far as logic is concerned and knowledge is most likely a factor.

However, there seems to be other factors at work than knowledge. I would expect some brains to be better at logic than at knowledge and vice versa. And you have things like motivation, job etc. Even opportunity probably can come to play a major role. If you happen to be born before Gottlob Frege's book on logic, you may not pay attention to formal logic at all even if you're very knowledgeable on all sorts of subjects, including maths.

3) The amount that someone knows is tightly coupled with how intelligent they are, because it takes intelligence to acquire knowledge

Well, one may have more knowledge than intelligence. I would say it takes a form of intelligence to acquire knowledge but a limited intelligence may be just good enough. You probably know the French expression "idiot savant". And I'm also sure you know of people who seem to be very logical but in a sort of brutish way, especially when they don't know much about human relations.

4) So this implies that our 'logical sense' comes from being innately intelligent

Yes although I believe the environments in which you grow up and live will affect both your access to knowledge and perhaps whether your brain develops well enough to fulfil your "innate" potential.

5) To be 'intelligent' in this way means 'problem solving skill'. People who are good at solving problems are good with logic

I still expect some people to be good with logic but not so gifted at problem solving, just because problem solving is more general and will usually require practical skills as well.

At least that's what's... logical to me

I'm not sure that's entirely a logical reasoning! But the result sounds good enough for me... Thanks.

That said, that's clearly still an open question. We'll have to wait for what science will be able to tell us about the subject, if anything at all.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

Horatio Parker was here too!

Ah, you're right, but he wasn't there when I posted at 11:51 PM (Paris time). Apparently, he only came in at 11:52, one full minute after I posted! I was probably already heading for my bed!

Good mark to you for denouncing your little comrade there!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Oh come on. It's 3:42 amen here in the wet coast in western most town on continental coast of 'meria. At this time of night I'm not fast enough to ford those thoughts.*

*^{_{yeah, I know.}}

 

[rousseau]

Yes, I broadly agree with that.



Yep.

However, most people possess some knowledge, usually enough of it to allow them to survive in their ordinary environment. And most people have, broadly, the same kind of knowledge, especially knowledge relative to what kind of world we live in. That kind of knowledge will usually be acquired progressively but starting from as soon as the brain starts to be operational. This is how I would expect what I call our sense of logic to be formed in all of us.

2) The breadth of someone's internalised logical concepts is also tightly coupled with how much they know, as their creation requires knowledge

Yes. It seems pretty clear different people may have quite different abilities as far as logic is concerned and knowledge is most likely a factor.

However, there seems to be other factors at work than knowledge. I would expect some brains to be better at logic than at knowledge and vice versa. And you have things like motivation, job etc. Even opportunity probably can come to play a major role. If you happen to be born before Gottlob Frege's book on logic, you may not pay attention to formal logic at all even if you're very knowledgeable on all sorts of subjects, including maths.

3) The amount that someone knows is tightly coupled with how intelligent they are, because it takes intelligence to acquire knowledge

Well, one may have more knowledge than intelligence. I would say it takes a form of intelligence to acquire knowledge but a limited intelligence may be just good enough. You probably know the French expression "idiot savant". And I'm also sure you know of people who seem to be very logical but in a sort of brutish way, especially when they don't know much about human relations.

4) So this implies that our 'logical sense' comes from being innately intelligent

Yes although I believe the environments in which you grow up and live will affect both your access to knowledge and perhaps whether your brain develops well enough to fulfil your "innate" potential.

5) To be 'intelligent' in this way means 'problem solving skill'. People who are good at solving problems are good with logic

I still expect some people to be good with logic but not so gifted at problem solving, just because problem solving is more general and will usually require practical skills as well.

At least that's what's... logical to me

I'm not sure that's entirely a logical reasoning! But the result sounds good enough for me... Thanks.

That said, that's clearly still an open question. We'll have to wait for what science will be able to tell us about the subject, if anything at all.
EB

There's a lot to parse there, but generally I would agree that environment and experiences also play a big factor. I mean if someone has a 140 IQ but is 6 years old, they're not going to be very smart, are they? At least compared to someone with vastly more experience.

But for the most part, I'd think that scientifically there should be specific configurations of neural wiring that will make people more/less intelligent and able to apply logic. But yea, how it turns out also depends on a large number of other factors.

 

[untermensche]

Logic is how ideas are connected. It takes a will and a mind to engage in it.

How we connect one idea to the next is our logic.

But there are no rules. The connections just need to make sense. To be a logical connection it can be defended.

The brain creates consciousness therefore consciousness cannot influence the brain.

The brain creates consciousness and possibly consciousness can influence the brain.

Which of these can be defended?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic is how ideas are connected. It takes a will and a mind to engage in it.

How we connect one idea to the next is our logic.

But there are no rules. The connections just need to make sense. To be a logical connection it can be defended.

The brain creates consciousness therefore consciousness cannot influence the brain.

The brain creates consciousness and possibly consciousness can influence the brain.

Which of these can be defended?

Let's start on a new footing, shall we? (sorry if it's a bit too stilted for you!)

You must be aware that in my view, meaning has to come first, and certainly before logic. Yet, as you know, my English isn't "true", whatever that means, so I'm not too sure what you mean in your post here. Now, I just need you to help me out a little bit. Just have a look at the definitions below and tell me which one would best fit the kind of logic you're talking about in your post.

Then, we will try to have a sensible conversation, if at all possible. Can you do that?
EB

Logic
n.
1. The study of principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content, and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5. Computers
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

[Middle English, from Old French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē (tekhnē), (art) of reasoning, logic, feminine of logikos, of reasoning, from logos, reason; see leg- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a lot to parse there, but generally I would agree that environment and experiences also play a big factor. I mean if someone has a 140 IQ but is 6 years old, they're not going to be very smart, are they? At least compared to someone with vastly more experience.

But for the most part, I'd think that scientifically there should be specific configurations of neural wiring that will make people more/less intelligent and able to apply logic. But yea, how it turns out also depends on a large number of other factors.

Okay, it seems we're clear on that. What about addressing the OP now?
EB

 

[rousseau]

There's a lot to parse there, but generally I would agree that environment and experiences also play a big factor. I mean if someone has a 140 IQ but is 6 years old, they're not going to be very smart, are they? At least compared to someone with vastly more experience.

But for the most part, I'd think that scientifically there should be specific configurations of neural wiring that will make people more/less intelligent and able to apply logic. But yea, how it turns out also depends on a large number of other factors.

Okay, it seems we're clear on that. What about addressing the OP now?
EB

I read the OP closely and kind of ignored it because I don't know that there is much more to it than that. Sometimes I think these 'theories' that various people propose often move us further away from essential truths about stuff like logic. Which in this case, to me, doesn't seem very complicated.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't know many formal theories of logic or have ever studied it formally so I can't really comment.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're forgiven.

But if logic is really so uncomplicated, as you say, what's stopping you laying it out here?
EB

 

[rousseau]

You're forgiven.

But if logic is really so uncomplicated, as you say, what's stopping you laying it out here?
EB

That's more or less what I did above, but with the multi-quote feature it gets hard/annoying to address each individual point. What more are you interested in me addressing?

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

I may be misunderstanding your question, but I think intuition or the kind of logic we rely on without thinking too much is riddled with cognitive and perceptive error. I think real logic is something that serves us best when we actively seek to challenge intuitive logic. So much of our day to day experience seems logical as long as we're not examining it too closely. Our magnificent brains take shortcuts in so many ways that work out for survival (of both the species and the individual ego), but do not actually make logical sense when attention and executive functions are applied.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

OK glove thown now acknowledged.

Let's start With what philosophers base their 'science of logic' reasoning upon

Here is a summary:   Science of logic

As I see it thought comes down to information when we get down to the science of it. So  Information theory summarizes that.

A comparison between them reveals the real difference between the two is the basis for assuming. I'm pretty well documented on what I believe to be the basic flaw of philosophy when it claims to wrap itself in relating to reality which is what Hegel does with a wave of hand about human thought.

Thought conceived by the thinker is rational given to what she has access, her thoughts. Clearly such observation connects thought to the real world (hand wave).

Information, on the other hand is related to physical nature of the world as observed and manipulated by man using a particular set of operations and operational references that can be replicated by anyone caring to do so. The simplest binary operation is the choice or binary switch. Clearly one can build from that opint to any complexity of choice or decision contemplated.

I leave it to the rational philosopher to propose an alternative that is as clear as robust as a basis for philosophical logic.

I also plan to argue that 'ordinary sense of logic' extends beyond what thinks individually since we've derived alternative means for finding facts. For instance it is obvious, even to the philosopher, that thought is community thought as well as individual thought and that it is clear that few ordinary humans think of the ordinary logic as philosophers prescribe.

After they/he does I'll move on to systems of logic such as   Decision theory,  Communication theory,  Game theory,  Systems theory,  Chaos theory etc.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I may be misunderstanding your question, but I think intuition or the kind of logic we rely on without thinking too much is riddled with cognitive and perceptive error. I think real logic is something that serves us best when we actively seek to challenge intuitive logic. So much of our day to day experience seems logical as long as we're not examining it too closely. Our magnificent brains take shortcuts in so many ways that work out for survival (of both the species and the individual ego), but do not actually make logical sense when attention and executive functions are applied.

Well, I would address the same facts, i.e. that we often disagree in our reasoning, by saying that our reasoning may not always be, and may in fact often not be, logical. Our reasoning may include all sorts of non-logical considerations. This is our privilege to decide what reasoning to follow, and therefore whether we reason logically or not to begin with.

If that's true, then the existence of non-logical reasoning doesn't mean that our logic is flawed, just as lying doesn't mean we don't know the truth.

Now, I would agree that this leaves open the question of whether we can get to be in complete agreement on the rules of logic. Apparently, professional logicians have a hard time doing just that. If logic is something real, what is it exactly and can we agree of what it is?

Also, it remains unclear whether we ever use only logical reasoning in any practical and concrete activity, say, the way banking systems work, the way we choose our representatives in democracies, etc. It seems easy to agree on basic syllogisms for example, but do we ever use syllogistic logic in our every life beyond trivial considerations, even though that should be regarded at least as a good start.

So, I take formal logic as a method (or the study of methods) to ensure that our reasoning should be logical whenever we want it to be logical. Also, as a way to make sure we all agree on what the rules are. As such, this sounds like addition. We can add up numbers but we may be often mistaken as soon as these numbers are too big for our brain. That doesn't mean addition doesn't exist or that there are no rules for addition. It just means we have first to agree on what exactly are the rules, then devise a formal system implementing those rules, and finally apply or not these rules depending on what the circumstances are on the moment.

So, yes, I agree a formal system is required, but I expect this system to reflect our intuitions, or our sense of logic, or at least most people's sense of logic if we can agree on what that is.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

SpeakPigeon wrote:

I expect this system to reflect our intuitions, or our sense of logic, or at least most people's sense of logic if we can agree on what that is

Every thing in your post is subject to challenge from the perspective that each human, although human, is unique, therefore one needs a filter or many filters to arrive at a 'logic of consensus' which is not at all an individual human logic.

Your plate if full sir and you've about admitted it is impossible.

 

[Beer With Straw]

I don't even know what "logic" is. I'm still perplexed when, why, and how 0 became a Real Number on the number line. Can someone imagine a universe where mathematics didn't apply?

But the best ideas in individual logic should come in the field of cognitive psychology, or in some relation. Hey, I wasn't thinking logically right away when my friend, dressed up as a ghost, snuck up on me and said "BOO!".

 

[untermensche]

Let's start on a new footing, shall we? (sorry if it's a bit too stilted for you!)

It cannot be too stilted for me but it can be stilted.

You must be aware that in my view, meaning has to come first, and certainly before logic.

Meaning is a given and it is acquired through experience.

Dog means one thing if all you have ever met is one dog and it means something else if you have met or been exposed somehow to many.

Yet, as you know, my English isn't "true", whatever that means...

It means you miss nuance all the time and have little nuance. In English all is very black and white to you. You confuse possibly useful but arbitrary rules placed upon the language with a natural creative use of it. A use where meaning is more important than rule following. When arbitrary rules are not followed you get a bit confused even if to a real English speaker the meaning is clear.

Logic
n.
1. The study of principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content, and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5. Computers
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

[Middle English, from Old French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē (tekhnē), (art) of reasoning, logic, feminine of logikos, of reasoning, from logos, reason; see leg- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]

Computer logic is whatever we say it is. Whatever we create.

Make a proposition and my mind will examine it and make something of it. If it is "illogical" my mind will possibly see it. At least according to the logic of my mind. Which may be a weak blunt instrument but it is really all anybody uses and some people in human history have had great instruments. And we all get to stand on their shoulders and feel very intelligent.

It is without effort.

It does not fit into any category.

I have taken classes in formal logic and when P leads to Q all anybody uses is their internal logic to say if it is the case anyway. They use their internal logic to make sense of it before reducing it to a model. Nothing is gained.

Understanding fallacies is a different matter. That is very helpful. But people use the charge of fallacy as a cheap dodge too and the mere claim of a fallacy can never be taken as proof of one.