Science and a Sense of Logic?

[Speakpigeon]

I believe I experience what seems to be what I would call a "sense of logic", the word "sense" to be taken here literally, as in the "sense of vision", the sense of hearing", etc.

As I see it, this sense includes basic logical capabilities. A few months ago for example, I came to write down a rather complex logical formula that I found immediately interesting. After a few days of toying with it, it occurred to me that it was a logical law (tautology, in Wittgenstein's vocabulary), i.e. a formula that's true in all possible logical cases, unlike the majority of all possible formulae, which are either true or false according to the specific logical case considered. At the time, I was unable to make explicit any good reason in support of this initial assessment outside purely "esthetic" considerations. In other words, it seemed that my brain somehow could give me an answer without telling me how it was doing the calculation. I take this to be best explained by this idea of a sense of logic. There's an obvious parallel with for example our sense of vision: my brain gives me a very nice picture of what seems to be the world around me, and yet I couldn't on my own explain how it does it. Now of course, we have the scientific explanation that came to confirm the idea that it's essentially the brain doing it together with our ocular globes.

So, my question here is what people think of that and whether any scientific investigation of our sense of logic is or has been done. I assume that we would all agree here that we feel we have an actual sense of logic. But is there any actual scientific research carried out on this aspect of our neurology and of our cognitive capabilities?

And that would seem to me a rather crucial research to conduct urgently!
EB

 

[bilby]

Isn't this analogous to 'common sense' - a feeling that something is (or is not) correct, that is not necessarily very accurate, but which makes up in speed for what it lacks in comprehensiveness.

It's very helpful to be able to make a rapid assessment that has (say) only an 80% chance of being correct, rather than being paralysed with indecision until such time as you have processed all of the logic in a rigorous manner and reached a 100% reliable conclusion.

Our brains have evolved to be good. Perfection is suboptimal. So we have a sense of logic, but it's not reliable even for people trained to think logically. People who have no such training are equally confident equally quickly; But that confidence is more frequently misplaced.

Of course, we can't tell if our 'common sense' was right or wrong without doing the rigorous work to prove (or refute) it; And it feels just as convincingly 'right' either way. That's how those who never do the rigorous work can be so confidently wrong, about so much, so often.

Although I could be mistaken about that.

 

[skepticalbip]

Humans, or indeed all animals, are capable of instinctively doing all sorts of things that would require a hell of a lot of understanding the human or other animal do not have in order to do consciously. As one example: a squirrel jumping from one limb to another instinctively accounts for the pull of gravity, the amount of force to be exerted by the leg muscles needed to cover the distance and not overshoot or undershoot, etc. Even something as apparently simple as walking on two feet requires a hell of a lot of "instinctive" knowledge - note what was required to make a robot do it.

It sounds like you may have just noticed one of the "instinctive" processes humans (and maybe other animals) have that allow them to function in the world.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing instinctive about "logic".

Humans are capable of learning to think logically but they do not think logically by nature.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is nothing instinctive about "logic".

Humans are capable of learning to think logically but they do not think logically by nature.

You are kinda right in the sense that logic is just a formal model of the thinking process, not the process itself. What squirrels do in leaping from limb to limb requires a mental process of instinctively accounting for their mass, the distance, gravity, etc. but the formal model used by humans to simulate the mental process is what we call physics. The squirrel does not consciously solve our formal physics models but it does quite easily instinctively reach the same conclusion a solution of our physics models would - and the squirrel would do it a hell of a lot quicker.

 

[untermensche]

Logic is how one deals with ideas.

It is not grabbing a branch.

What else is logic?

Swallowing your food?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Isn't this analogous to 'common sense' - a feeling that something is (or is not) correct, that is not necessarily very accurate, but which makes up in speed for what it lacks in comprehensiveness.

It's very helpful to be able to make a rapid assessment that has (say) only an 80% chance of being correct, rather than being paralysed with indecision until such time as you have processed all of the logic in a rigorous manner and reached a 100% reliable conclusion.

Our brains have evolved to be good. Perfection is suboptimal. So we have a sense of logic, but it's not reliable even for people trained to think logically. People who have no such training are equally confident equally quickly; But that confidence is more frequently misplaced.

Of course, we can't tell if our 'common sense' was right or wrong without doing the rigorous work to prove (or refute) it; And it feels just as convincingly 'right' either way. That's how those who never do the rigorous work can be so confidently wrong, about so much, so often.

Good points but I don't think so...

I would agree there are similarities and common mechanisms but I think we mean two very different things by these two expressions.

Common sense
plain ordinary good judgment; sound practical judgment independent of specialized knowledge or training; normal native intelligence.

First, if common sense is independent of any specialised knowledge according to the definition above, it is not independent of the experience of the world life can give you. Common sense is dependent on that. Less experience, less common sense.

Second, common sense is badly impacted by other mental processes and mental events, such as emotions, impressions, self-interest, sensations, desires etc. For common sense, we look at the actual behaviour or performance of the subject so that somebody with an emotional temperament will be seen as having no common sense.

Our sense of logic is understood as a something more deep-seated than a behaviour. It is literally an actual sense, like in "visual sense". Our production of logical statements, and even our reasoning, will be affected by our emotions and such, but our sense of logic remains intact. It's just badly used or even just not used at all because we really like candy.

So, I would agree that our sense of logic plays a role in our public performance in terms of being judged by others as having good common sense, but common sense includes more than just our sense of logic.

Common sense is the performance of a subject in an environment publicly assessed as somehow appropriate by other people, somewhat like politeness and civility. It's objective.

Our sense of logic is a basic mechanism of our brain. The subject is the only witness, not even of its performance, which is unconscious, but only of its actual production. It is subjective although its consequences on our behaviour may be objectively assessed.

I also agree about brain mechanisms that need to be effective on average rather than always correct and accurate. It's optimal. However, I see our sense of logic rather in the same league as other senses. Vision is not perfect, far from it, but it's really, really good. I think our sense of logic is even better than that because it is much more crucial as it applies potentially to just about any decision we make in life. Where we optimise is when we choose to disregard whatever our sense of logic may tell us and follow instead our emotions, desires, intent to deceit, etc.

Well, at least that's how I see it.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Logic is how one deals with ideas.

It is not grabbing a branch.

What else is logic?

Swallowing your food?

You need to actually read....

"logic is just a formal model of the thinking process, not the process itself"

 

[Speakpigeon]

Humans, or indeed all animals, are capable of instinctively doing all sorts of things that would require a hell of a lot of understanding the human or other animal do not have in order to do consciously. As one example: a squirrel jumping from one limb to another instinctively accounts for the pull of gravity, the amount of force to be exerted by the leg muscles needed to cover the distance and not overshoot or undershoot, etc. Even something as apparently simple as walking on two feet requires a hell of a lot of "instinctive" knowledge - note what was required to make a robot do it.

It sounds like you may have just noticed one of the "instinctive" processes humans (and maybe other animals) have that allow them to function in the world.

Oh, good, so we kinda agree for once!

Still, it feels like you're just going out into some seriously heavy-duty philosophising here. You don't even seem to have much in way of scientific evidence in support of what you say.

Going out on a limb, are we, Squirrel? Defying gravity...

Or, maybe, it's effectively something like your instinctive common sense in action?

Still, we kinda agree, which must be good.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Humans, or indeed all animals, are capable of instinctively doing all sorts of things that would require a hell of a lot of understanding the human or other animal do not have in order to do consciously. As one example: a squirrel jumping from one limb to another instinctively accounts for the pull of gravity, the amount of force to be exerted by the leg muscles needed to cover the distance and not overshoot or undershoot, etc. Even something as apparently simple as walking on two feet requires a hell of a lot of "instinctive" knowledge - note what was required to make a robot do it.

It sounds like you may have just noticed one of the "instinctive" processes humans (and maybe other animals) have that allow them to function in the world.

Oh, good, so we kinda agree for once!

Still, it feels like you're just going out into some seriously heavy-duty philosophising here. You don't even seem to have much in way of scientific evidence in support of what you say.

Going out on a limb, are we, Squirrel? Defying gravity...

Or, maybe, it's effectively something like your instinctive common sense in action?

Still, we kinda agree, which must be good.
EB

Indeed...

It is only reasonable to agree when offered a reasonable suggestion. Formal logic is, after all, only a model of how people reason which can be used as a guide for clearer reasoning. However, certainly people reasoned before Aristotle and people today and in the past were capable or rational reasoning that had never studied (or even heard of) formal logic. Seems to be perfectly "logical" to me to assume that rational reasoning (which logic is a model of) would be an innate human ability... If it wasn't then Aristotle would not have been able formulate his system of logic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is only reasonable to agree when offered a reasonable suggestion. Formal logic is, after all, only a model of how people reason which can be used as a guide for clearer reasoning. However, certainly people reasoned before Aristotle and people today and in the past were capable or rational reasoning that had never studied (or even heard of) formal logic. Seems to be perfectly "logical" to me to assume that rational reasoning (which logic is a model of) would be an innate human ability... If it wasn't then Aristotle would not have been able formulate his system of logic.

I would assume that a number of important mathematical theorems underpin theoretical physics, maybe only implicitly, physicists perhaps just trusting mathematicians and taking the maths for granted.

Yet, it seems that the kind of formal logic that's available to mathematicians to do the logical proof of their theorems doesn't properly model our sense of logic (There's the baffling question of the "material implication" but perhaps more importantly the complexity of formal logic itself).

So, isn't it rather crucial, and perhaps even urgent, that science looked into the question of our sense of logic? As an empirical question, isn't it the job of science?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So, isn't it rather crucial, and perhaps even urgent, that science looked into the question of our sense of logic? As an empirical question, isn't it the job of science?
EB

Nol. Human sense is about receptor and effector loops. Logic has no receptor nor effector.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, isn't it rather crucial, and perhaps even urgent, that science looked into the question of our sense of logic? As an empirical question, isn't it the job of science?
EB

Nol. Human sense is about receptor and effector loops. Logic has no receptor nor effector.

Is it you the little dog that barks?

Sorry, silly me, not the "dog". The dogmatic.

My dogma if I can bark it back to you is as follows: All questions are empirical until empirically proven otherwise.

See? How do you like that? Go on, try it!
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

It is only reasonable to agree when offered a reasonable suggestion. Formal logic is, after all, only a model of how people reason which can be used as a guide for clearer reasoning. However, certainly people reasoned before Aristotle and people today and in the past were capable or rational reasoning that had never studied (or even heard of) formal logic. Seems to be perfectly "logical" to me to assume that rational reasoning (which logic is a model of) would be an innate human ability... If it wasn't then Aristotle would not have been able formulate his system of logic.

I would assume that a number of important mathematical theorems underpin theoretical physics, maybe only implicitly, physicists perhaps just trusting mathematicians and taking the maths for granted.

Physicists generally do their own math. A degree in physics requires about the same number of classes in mathematics as is required in physics. However, there is a very old joke among physicists (ribbing the mathematicians), "A physicist's job is to set up the equations - after that is done, even a mathematician can solve it."

Yet, it seems that the kind of formal logic that's available to mathematicians to do the logical proof of their theorems doesn't properly model our sense of logic (There's the baffling question of the "material implication" but perhaps more importantly the complexity of formal logic itself).

So, isn't it rather crucial, and perhaps even urgent, that science looked into the question of our sense of logic? As an empirical question, isn't it the job of science?
EB

That may be paramount in your personal concerns but, for others, there are other concerns that are much more pressing. That is a great thing about science - people can work to gain a better understanding into what concerns them. You are welcome to study enough to become proficient in the appropriate field so you can investigate whatever you personally consider to be "crucial". Who knows, there may even be a Nobel in store for you if you apply yourself.

 

[steve_bank]

I had a calculus professor who had worked at a national lab post WWII pre computers. His speciality was integration. He worked in a room full of matahemticians. Someone would walk in with a problem and it would get passed around the room.

I imagind the lines are blured at times. Gauss Was both scientist and mathemetician. Theoretical math is developing things like the Divergence Theorem or Fourier Trasform and the proofs needed to put them on solid ground.

Did Eistein need any math that prieviously did not exist?

 

[Bomb#20]

Physicists generally do their own math. A degree in physics requires about the same number of classes in mathematics as is required in physics. However, there is a very old joke among physicists (ribbing the mathematicians), "A physicist's job is to set up the equations - after that is done, even a mathematician can solve it."

Good one. It isn't really true, though. Physics is full of equations a mathematician can't solve. Full disclosure: I'm a guy who majored in math because in physics the math was too hard.

 

[steve_bank]

Complex systems of equations today tend to be non linear. They require a solver for a numerical solution.

Tools like Matlab and Scilab make solving systems of equations easy, you only have to know enough to set it up.

Way back when the HP11 calculator came out with a built in numerical integration function it was a big deal in everyday electronics.

I used slide rules in high school.

 

[skepticalbip]

Physicists generally do their own math. A degree in physics requires about the same number of classes in mathematics as is required in physics. However, there is a very old joke among physicists (ribbing the mathematicians), "A physicist's job is to set up the equations - after that is done, even a mathematician can solve it."

Good one. It isn't really true, though. Physics is full of equations a mathematician can't solve. Full disclosure: I'm a guy who majored in math because in physics the math was too hard.

Really??? As I recall, all my math classes generally had a mixture of both math and physics majors.

However, I did have one old physics prof who seems to have taken that old joke very seriously. His position was that he was there to teach physics, not math. He just assumed we could do the math. So, on his exams, he gave 90% credit on a problem for understanding the physics and setting up the solution in an equation and only 10% credit for grinding through the math to a final solution. Since the math can be tedious and time consuming, we quickly learned to go through the full exam solving the physics and setting up the solutions in equation form then going back and finishing up the mathematics as time allowed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Physicists generally do their own math. A degree in physics requires about the same number of classes in mathematics as is required in physics. However, there is a very old joke among physicists (ribbing the mathematicians), "A physicist's job is to set up the equations - after that is done, even a mathematician can solve it."

Good one. It isn't really true, though. Physics is full of equations a mathematician can't solve. Full disclosure: I'm a guy who majored in math because in physics the math was too hard.

Really??? As I recall, all my math classes generally had a mixture of both math and physics majors.

For example, the three-body problem. Setting up the equation is straightforward, but it's unsolvable. There isn't much for a mathematician to do except ask a computer for an approximate numerical solution, or else find a special case that can be solved analytically, publish a paper, and leave the rest of us to observe that that special case doesn't come up in practice. Mother Nature is a b...

However, I did have one old physics prof who seems to have taken that old joke very seriously. His position was that he was there to teach physics, not math. He just assumed we could do the math. So, on his exams, he gave 90% credit on a problem for understanding the physics and setting up the solution in an equation and only 10% credit for grinding through the math to a final solution.

Can't argue with that.

 

[steve_bank]

I think the point is theoretical physists do not normally develop new math tecniques and proofs.

It is moot today anyway on applied math. Beyond straightforward problems low cost math tools solve complex math systems to any practical degree of accuracy.

Mathcad, Matlab and others. You don't need to be an expert, only set up the problem.

In electromagnetics directly solving Maxwell's Equations in complex structueres was impossible until cheap fast computers came along using numerical solutiions.