Why do we revere logic?

Isn’t logic the foundation of everything basic. Everything else would be open to interpretation and we all know how mangled that can be.

[Mac user] It just works! [/Mac user]

Logic is non contradictory identification.
It is based on the law of identity, the fact that something can not be what it is and what it is not, at the same time.
Since the truth about reality is not given to us in concrete form, nor is it given to us all at once, we must learn about reality piece by piece.
Since one’s survival often depends on understanding reality, it pays to have a reliable method for understanding it. Nobody has come up with a more consistently reliable method than Aristotle.
The only real attempt to present an alternative was by Emmanuel Kant and it is gibberish.

Different strokes for different times.

In business, science, teaching, building and most writing, to name several examples, logic is necessary in order to have processes work properly and for things to make sense.

I suppose that if you’re trying to calm a child from a nightmare, then logic may not be quite as helpful as, for instance, a nice, simple fairy tale or a creation of an alternate dream world that a child could inhabit.

But if you’re going to pilot my ship or build my skyscraper or service my automobile, I would hope that you apply logic and rationality and not a magic wand or soothing words.

Because it makes sense to a logical person.

@woodcutter
But it’s not really, is it? Most of what we’ve discovered about the world has been just that: discovery. We’ve come in with logic later and tried to piece it together. And while we have figured some things out that way, not the majority.
And the logic is faulty as soon as we discover another piece of the giant thing we’re playing with and assuming is a puzzle.

@josie “It is based on the law of identity, the fact that something can not be what it is and what it is not, at the same time.” ...I’m having issues with this statement that I’m having a hard time getting to…
The problem I have is that it’s a nonstatement… that’s the best I can get at with words. Because no matter what something is, that’s what it is.
I know we’re not given everything at once: that’s life. But ‘understanding reality’ doesn’t have to be in only one way. Talking about survival: Say you’re faced with a tiger. (I’m just gonna give two examples, because these two are usually presented as the only two, but I’m sure there are other ways.) Logical: That tiger there has rather large, sharp, teeth. And it’s advancing at me. It must see me as lunch. That’s not very good. I’ll run. Emotionally: Yikes! Tiger! Going to eat me!! I’ll run!… both ensure survival, no?

@WasCy That’s what I’m saying, that logic isn’t that answer-all that I feel like it’s being pushed as, at least pushed to me as. But there’s more than “logic+rationality” and “magic+soothing words” in the world, isn’t there?

And that’s the hard time I have with logic. It feels stifling, because it’s suggesting that there’s only one answer, and it’s the right answer, and you can only get there using a specific path—a path we call rationality—and anything veering off that path is irrationality. If we’re going to call everything else irrational, nothing else holds up much of a chance, does it? (And that’s not very logical—to deny something simply because it doesn’t follow logic’s specific route—is it?)
I understand using logic as a medium for presentation. (That’s what we’re all doing right now, maybe minus the much-loved humorous responses to present our reasons to each other.)

It’s our searching for answers more than our logicing together what we already knew that’s leading us to greater understanding, or at least to holding to more pieces. So I guess what I’m saying is, why are we giving all the credit to logic, when it’s just one simple, small, tool we use? (Not only use, but have been fervently taught to use above much else regardless.) We can’t create anything using just one tool.
...Right?

Wonderful question! You’re quite right that our logical, discursive, linear faculties are only one aspect of the mind, but it’s got one asset that the more intuitive and emotional side of the mind does not: language. This gives the intellect a megaphone with which it can drown out the subtler aspects of mind.

The brain’s language centers are almost entirely located in the cerebral hemisphere primarily responsible for logical cognition. This side of the brain orders experience conceptually, braking reality down into clearly bounded things and enforces rules of logic. This world view is encoded in language, and it is language which is the basis for our inner monologue. All of that speech in your head is your dominant hemisphere digesting experience into intelligible form. The logical part of the mind, in other words, is very high-profile, always claiming attention, always having its say. Language gives it that power.

The other more holistic, emotional, non-linear faculties largely centered in the non-dominant hemisphere, literally don’t have a voice. They express their take on reality in quiet and subtle ways, often subconsciously or intuitively. This version of experience doesn’t respect the rules of order of the intellect. From the perspective of these faculties, something can both be what it is and what it is not, to borrow @josie ‘s wording. It isn’t concerned with drawing distinctions between things. It’s more attuned to connections.

The intellect looks at this as a bunch of nonsense, and it can always prove it wrong precisely because it isn’t logical. So it feels rather smug, always able to win the argument of the hemispheres. But that’s only because it’s judging by its own rules. Without the perspective supplied by the non-linear mind, our lives would be hellishly impoverished.

The logical mind is unbeatable at many tasks. But there’s a huge dimension to life that’s better approached non-conceptually, and here logic had better step aside and let intuition take over.

I wonder this myself. Logic has its uses – but I prefer broader concepts of reason for most questions that can’t be answered with a generally accepted absolute.

I mostly make use of formal logic, that is understanding the form arguments should take to make sense. After all, if we can’t put together arguments reasonably, whatever the actual premises of said arguments are, there is little chance of having constructive conversation (not to mention useful conclusions).

Well, of course there’s more than “logic+rationality” and “magic+soothing words” in the world. There’s also stark, raving lunacy, and religion, to name a couple of things. And who knows? The religion might be right; you might be able to pick the “one true religion” out of the thousands of choices out there. In a ‘Matrix’ world, even the lunacy might be right.

But in the world that I inhabit, I value logic because it works to help me obtain the things that I like. Even girls, sometimes, at least the intelligent and rational ones that I prefer.

Logic and illogic are two sides of the same coin – a brilliant flash of insight is nothing—means nothing— without the mental tools to piece the background data (both available and to thence be sought out) together into a self-consistent whole that withstands logical analysis.

Drawing connections between ideas is post-conceptual, imo, even if the concepts are not verbalised.

This is why logic is valued – even pushed, as you say. As @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard says – it just works. The whole scientific method (as opposed to worldview or how scientific ideas come about) is based on it, and I would look askance at anyone who denied that this approach has made lives immeasurably better.

The Romantic philosophers and writers sought to reaffirm and reappraise the value of illogic rather than supplant logic, although that might be a charitable interpretation in light of Keats’ “Unweaving the Rainbow”.

@the100thmonkey, side note: it’s made things better but it’s made things worse. We live longer in a world that has more ways of blowing each other up. We get medicine to make ourselves better and poison to make ourselves ill. We have ways of connecting with each other across the world that arguably interfer with our abilities to communicate when we’re face-to-face. We have ways of traveling farther in a few hours than we could in a lifetime, that are polluting the very world we’re traveling across, along with all the other life we’ve evolved on this world with. I’d say science, as everything, has merely changed things. We can look on those changes as better or worse or somewhere in between.

@DancingMind – but we haven’t blown each other up. Yet. I would argue that when it comes to gigadeath, a certain logic must enter into the equation. I feel (illogically, as it’s indemonstrable) that because of this no-one has pushed the big red button. Yet.

The other issues you mention drift away from the idea of logic as a standalone entity; they are issues where, I feel, the solutions would come sooner if the decisions were based purely on what is logical. Climate science and the predictions regarding anthropogenic climate change are a prime example of how illogic, realpolitik and ignorance (wilful or otherwise), limit logic in its operations, and why logic should be pushed in schools.

@DancingMind I really think you’d appreciate Derrick Jensen’s book “Welcome to the Machine”, judging by your responses. I highly recommend it (and if you’re in southern New England, I’ll even lend out my copy).

Logic is separate from the scientific worldview, but as @the100thmonkey pointed out it is the basis for the scientific method (I always differentiate the two). Many have made the argument that much of what has been done with scientific research is illogical.

I think because logic is usually objective and emotions are subjective. When you lie to a police officer you of course know it’s bad (it’s logical to tell the truth) but when you are lying you do that because you’re afraid of getting arrested. (emotion=fear)

This could be the reason society wants you to think logical and use your rationality, because then people would say what they think is logical (i.e. not lying, giving your honest opinion) and not what you’re emotions say (i.e. lying) which is subjective and could be influenced by other people, or maybe threats etc.

@klaas4 How would lying to the cops be less logical than telling the truth? Logic and honesty aren’t the same thing. If anything, it would be more logical to lie; the end result is not getting in trouble (hopefully) and in a utilitarian sense that’s better.

@incendiary_dan You think lying to cops is the logical thing to do? They already picked you out for a reason (suspicion, driving-style whatever). Though I understand that you can hope to get out of it, isn’t that an emotion to start with? (which, I think aren’t logical)

In my opinion it’s logical to tell the truth because your being honest, don’t you think?

I think people who think especially logically are often inclined to “over-use” it as a source of security. It’s better than a lot of other things one could turn to.

@klaas4 That doesn’t make it logical, that makes it have some sense of morality (and ill-placed, in my opinion). It’s irrelevent if it’s also emotional. It’s logical to try to keep oneself out of trouble, and most of the time lying to the cops accomplishes that (that or just shutting up).

GQ. I’m extremely logic driven, to a fault, and it really comes back and bites me in the ass. I’ve found myself wondering the same thing lately. It is handy, no doubt. Probably should be used in moderation, though. Too much of a good thing…

@thorninmud @DancingMind Simply quoting Aristotle. The “Law of Identity” It is the axiomatic principle that is the basis for logic. Without it, there would be no method called “logic”.

@the100thmonkey and @incendiary_dan thanks I drifted off more than I realized!
@incendiary_dan I’ll check the book out

Wait a minute… Do we revere logic?
I think there are some presumptions here.
Whose’s “we” anyway? The Western world? The academic community? The medical community?

I can think of many many contexts in our everyday life where logic really does not apply but is used on a consistent basis. Advertising, for example…

Nor in times of crisis…

We clearly don’t revere logic. If we did, maybe this planet would be a little better? Logical reasoning is the shit.

But we don’t revere logic. The world around us vividly demonstrates man’s persistence in doing things despite knowledge of the possible or inevitable destructive results.

@SABOTEUR ok, maybe not, : ) haha
But is the reason really because people do stupid things? You’re logical or stupid? I don’t see those things being opposite… logically, can’t you see around destruction? That’s what computers who take over the world in sci-fi books and movies do. Decide some destruction is logically needed for a “better” world…?

“It was said of Hitler that from insane premise to monstrous conclusion, he was coldly, icily logical”

I wish I could remember who said that. I know that I read the quote first in another book by Derrick Jensen.

I think that we revere logic at least in part because, like literacy and basic math skills, it is something that is dying off. Many people are utterly incapable of applying any sort of rational thought to anything, preferring instead to follow only their rage or mob mentality.

We revere technical prowess despite the fact that much of it is stuff that anybody could learn. But instead of being seen as a skill, it is seen as a superpower. Now, would you revere somebody who had superpowers?

Logic is good and it has its place. Critical thinking and the scientific method have allowed us to achieve great things. Logic is necessary. However, many of the greatest theories and discoveries were arrived at by an intuitive flash of insight. That is when the mind makes wordless connections that may involve logical thought but are not actively directed by conscious thought. Einstein, Galileo, and many other great scientists relied on their intuition, not only their logic.

@Earthgirl True, but just because intuition and emotion are important, that doesn’t mean that logic is not. Like many things, logic can be overdone, but that doesn’t mean that logic should be discarded the way more and more people seem to do these days.

No one said that logic isn’t important. Certainly not me. But I think that what Dancing Mind is trying to get at and understand is why some people value it to the exclusion of any type of subjective or intuitive knowledge. It’s ok to say, we need to prove this with logic. But if we start censoring any input that is NOT scientifically proven we are limiting our perception and that isn’t good either. Some things that aren’t proven by the scientific method are nontheless true. It has happened that folk wisdom and old wives tales have been proven to be true in some cases. An example to illustrate this point-for years doctors held the belief that infants did not feel pain in the same way as adults because their nervous systems were not fully developed yet. Mothers insisted that they knew that their infants felt pain. Finally it was “proven” scientifically that the mothers were correct. All hail medical certainty.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that we need logic and the scientific method. But we need to listen to subjective experience also. We need to value intuition.

Actually, @Earthgirl, in examples such as the ones you cited, it is the doctors (and not solely in this case) who were not the logical ones if they relied upon fixed ideas instead of actual science. We still suffer from a lot of those fixed ideas, as you can see any time you read a newspaper article about how we can “spend our way out of a recession”, as if that has ever been successful, or could ever be. It’s not logical, but people who should definitely know better have a fixed idea that it is so, and persist in that particular illogic.

It’s fine for science to eventually catch up to the doctors in your example and prove what some mothers might have known all along, but the proof depends on… logic. So in that case and others like it, logic buttresses what some people know from experience, but even their experience has a logical basis: “we did this before and it worked, so let’s do it again”. Compare to Cargo Cult Science (a great read, by the way) for a totally warped misapplication of “native wisdom”.

@Earthgirl It seems you are not thinking of logic, but rather of Straw Vulcans. Because like @WasCy said, the doctors in your example are not logical. People simply don’t have a great concept of what logic really is in many cases.

@WasCy Spending our way out of a recession is possible by definition. Whether or not you like the results of doing so is a separate matter.

@SavoirFaire you can also put out a fire with gasoline, but it’s not a method that I’d recommend.

@WasCy But that was exactly my point: whether something is possible and whether or not it is a good idea are logically separate things. I’m not endorsing the solution, I’m pointing out that it is not impossible for it to be successful. Unless, of course, you are trying to build the consequences into your notion of success. But that would be illogical—indeed, it would be fallacious.

@WasCy There are times where logic is counter-intuitive. BTW, how would you extinguish a smoldering bale of cotton?

@SavoirFaire I think we’re splitting hairs, and one of the hairs is how we would define ‘success’ at ‘spending our way out of recession’. Because by the time that is done we’d have set the stage for a much worse failure – like putting out a small fire with gasoline leaves you vulnerable to a much worse conflagration. So I’ll concede your point.

@jerv

Having never had to face that problem before, I suppose I’d try to smother the thing with carbon dioxide or water (submerging it, most likely) until it burned out whatever residual oxygen was contained inside the bale.

But since you seem to be making a point about counter-intuitiveness, is the answer to pile on more cotton?

Aristotle’s logical method was superseded by more modern logicians, and philosophers, which led to amongst other things, the computer, for better or for worse.

Identity thinking was resoundingly rejected by Adorno in the 20th century, in nature no two objects are identical, the much revered concept attempts to universalise but only by suppressing what is particular or peculiar to the object. This methodology creates a superficial consciousness, or partial consciousness of the world. Through negative-dialectics Adorno sought to create a more critical consciousness that addressed this concern, by offering greater respect to the object’s particularity and by analysing what is missing, because the object doesn’t necessarily fit into the Concept without leaving a remainder. He called this approach non-identity thinking unsurprisingly.

One of the characteristics of logic, is that for it to attain so much consensus with regards to it’s irrefutability, it must rely heavily on abstraction. So heavily in fact, that what it says may in deed be true, but it actually doesn’t say anything satisfactory about the world that it has somehow long departed.

Kant wasn’t really a propagator of Gibberish, that is unfair, he was by all accounts a decent scientist and applied quite a scientific approach to philosophy. He investigated the fundamental structures that make apprehension possible, a valid project. And his categorical imperative still stands as a reasonable secular, axiomatic approach to ethical behaviour, when Religious dogma was causing the world grave concern as to it’s political fairness.

I think logic is pretty easy to apply, for anyone who doesn’t have a completely submissive attitude towards it, or an emotional or creative investment against it, or brain defects obviously. The real problem is where it’s applied. One could use logic to climb their way up to power, but then use unrestrained passion in using that power. Or, for people in general, logic usually must be used in planning events in life, but it seems to rarely be used in determining those events themselves. It takes balance, that is probably impeded most significantly by the illogical passion of powerful people. If people had less unnecessary stresses, intense logic in daily life wouldn’t have to be seen as such a strong virtue.

Maybe the real reverence (fear) for logic comes from the popular and seemingly mostly unconscious assumption that it justifies the complete disrespect for other elements of intelligence.

We revere it so much, perhaps, because of its relative scarcity.

is it logical to believe logic is scarce or dying out?

@zophu It is logical to believe what evidence appears to indicate.

Emotions are the foundation of our human brain, not our alleged rational mind. Why do we revere logic? Because usually our emotions make us feel good when we think about logic.

@DancingMind re: But is the reason really because people do stupid things? You’re logical or stupid?

I think it’s because man being “right”.

In fact, “logic” can arguably be defined as “it seemed like a good idea at the time”. All the so-called facts lead to the undeniable conclusion that such-and-such will be the inevitable conclusion…

…EXCEPT, when it doesn’t.

So, instead of acknowledging the limitations to the way we process information, we go on to use the same erroneous model to analyze things and stand perplexed when we once again experience unacceptable results.

SABOTEUR The problem there would be with the false premise, not the use of logic itself.

@Earthgirl: lol…“false premise” is what you call “logic” after the fact.

After the fact that you discover it ‘twern’t as logical as you thought it was.

SABOTEUR Touche!

I think it’s probably important here to clarify the distinction between logic as discipline and logic by result – validity and falsifiability.

The previous few posts seem to confuse the two distinct parts – conflating validity and falsifiability.

It is axiomatically true (although Gödel might disagree) that the conclusions reached through accurately-performed logical operations are valid conclusions. However, if there are problems with the premisses, the results of the operations will not be true – they will be false; they will not be reflected in the real world.

Therefore, you can make a perfectly logical argument, but if the assumptions contained within the premisses turn out to be wrong, the perfectly logical result will be wrong.

The entirety of the logicist program – from Aristotle to Russell, Gödel and onwards – is in vain if this is not understood. 1 + 1 is logically demonstrable to equal 2. If you don’t know what “1” represents, though, you’ll never find an answer that makes sense.

I agree with @the100thmonkey: @SABOTEUR is confusing a colloquial sense of the word “logical” with the meaning at issue here. Strictly speaking, “logical” does not mean “true.” Thus a problem with a premise is not a problem with logic.

Logic is truly not revered; people pay it an artificial reverence because man uses logic or uses it better, so to have it makes man the top of the evolutionary scale. Logic to most is unconsciously dangerous; to use logic in its true unadulterated state would have to displace emotions, to many that would be a treat to leaving them inhumane or less than human. To counter they try to logically say why we need illogical attributes like compassion, empathy, etc. Logic might be pseudo worshiped, but never truly respected.

@Hypocrisy_Central That response makes no sense and reveals that you don’t actually understand what logic is. And if you had bothered to actually read the other responses, you would see that your answer was already refuted above.

^ Then enlighten me, you define logic as what in a nut shell?

@Hypocrisy_Central Logic is the study of arguments and inferences and the body of knowledge that results from that study. Being logical involves taking what we have learned about arguments and inferences—specifically, which inferences and which forms of argument are valid and which are invalid—and putting it into practice in our own reasoning. Put another way, the practice of logic is properly reasoning from premises to conclusions (and of recognizing when other people have failed to reason properly).

^ Most people I speak with in the real, logic is what makes sense, either to avoid an unfavorable outcome, or moves made to facilitate a favorable outcome, in that construct, however one calls it, people have a difficult time doing it, or even an avoidance of it though that is what they say they want to achieve.

@Hypocrisy_Central Reducing logic down to “what makes sense” leaves us with a very narrow definition of what it means for something to “make sense.” Logic is about patterns of argument, which is just one part of the broader topic of rationality. Being rational includes being logical, but rationality is concerned with more than just patterns of argument. It delves into the assessment of elements that go beyond an argument’s structure, such as the reasonableness of the premises themselves or of the evidence presented in favor of them.

Consider, for instance, the following argument:

1. All bananas are purple.
2. Anything that is purple is a washing machine.
3. All bananas are washing machines.

The argument is perfectly logical. It commits no formal or informal fallacies, and it follows a valid pattern of argument (that is to say, it “makes sense” to the extent that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would also be true). But a rational person would recognize that it is not the case that all bananas are purple, and it is not the case that anything that is purple is a washing machine. Any evidence that someone tried to present for those premises would inevitably be faulty. So even though the argument is logical, it does not live up to the standards of rationality.

^ So even though the argument is logical, it does not live up to the standards of rationality.
If anyone knows bananas and washing machines, none of that would make sense from the start.

@Hypocrisy_Central Sure, but that’s why it matters whether we are using a broad definition of what it means for something to “make sense” or a narrow definition. Logic is only concerned with what makes sense if we are using a narrow definition. If we are using broad definition of “makes sense,” then logic is not about what makes sense (contrary to your earlier assertion). This is why I don’t think it is a good idea to think about logic in terms of “what makes sense.” The phrase is just too ambiguous to be helpful.

Logic is about patterns of argument. It tells us what conclusions follow from our premises. It does not tell us whether or not our premises (or our conclusions!) are themselves true (unless those premises or conclusions are internally inconsistent). So what it means to say that the argument concerning bananas and washing machines is logical is that if the premises of that argument were true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. This condition—that is, when the conclusion of an argument follows from its premises—is called “logical validity.”

Logical validity, however, is not the last stop on the rationality train. We don’t just want our arguments to be valid. We also want our premises to be true. Because if our arguments are valid and our premises are true, then our conclusion must also be true. That’s the problem with the argument concerning bananas and washing machines: it’s not that it commits any logical errors (it doesn’t); it’s that the premises are false. But there is a difference between an argument being illogical and a premise (or a conclusion) being false.

^ Logic is about patterns of argument. It tells us what conclusions follow from our premises.
Some (and I could say many) fold the logic to support their premise. Facts might show their premise to be totally false, but they will not let go if it for anything, or at least try to spin it as to justify it.

Which is completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing here. You asked me to explain to you what logic is (since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand it), and I have answered you. That some people are bad at it changes nothing.

^ You asked me to explain to you what logic is (since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand it), and I have answered you.
How you explained it, no one still reveres it.

I never said they did. Most people are fair-weather fans when it comes to logic, which is to say that they revere it right up until the point that it becomes inconvenient. Then again, one can revere something without understanding or practicing it, so it does not follow from the fact that people fail to be logical all the time that they do not revere logic. And there are certainly plenty of philosophers who revere logic (perhaps even a bit too much at times).