Farren

I have a little textbook here by Wilfred Hodges simply called "Logic". It runs through the foundations of logic and formal reasoning.

He provides a very succinct introduction, pointing out how logic differs from reason with a few points and examples:

Logic is about the consistency of sets of ideas.

It is not about the truth, moral right, or reasonableness of ideas.

It is about whether your stated or held ideas or beliefs are compatible, or cannot all be true at the same time (contradictory)

He demonstrates the distinction between logic and reasonableness by using the example of a man telling a court "your honour, despite having 10 accidents in one year I am not a bad driver, just an unlucky one" - this is unreasonable (unlikely) but not illogical.

What strikes me about the entire science of logics is that it is unaffected by the language or culture in which a discussion or debate takes place. The simple principle of exclusion ("a world view cannot possibly be true as a whole if two parts of that view flat out contradict each other") operates regardless of the communication medium. Arguments by "reasonableness" (likelihood and moral good based on cultural axioms) do, however, suffer in translation.

Of course, the reason an entire science of Logics has evolved around this simple principle is partly because seeing the contradiction usually requires many steps of derivation and comparison in the real world. Often these steps require facts to be taken as a priori "givens". However, for those schooled in or familiar with formal logic, the associated behaviour of determining and finalising givens allows such derivation.

People with no respect for or understanding of Logics often switch premises with dizzying speed when their desired outcome is threatened, which is itself an illogical way of debating - the implied set of beliefs is that you can predicate an idea on one assumption, predicate another idea on a contradictory assumption, then put them together and call it an argument or a worldview.

In any case, one quality I've found common to most athiests, freethinkers and nontheistic subscribers to certain esoteric philosophies (such as buddism and daoism), is the strong reliance on formal logic for paring away contradictory facts

Looking through my little textbook of Logic, I can't help feeling like this stuff is a hell of a lot easier to understand than a lot of the maths taught at high school. Even in countries with a much bigger fundy influence that South Africa, I can't see logics being any more controversial than maths if taught at schools.

And I believe the influence on illogical beliefs in society will be profound. Not just illogical religious beliefs, but all illogical beliefs.

I don't get a kick out of intellectually pouncing people, but I've plowed a more than a few friends and acquaintences into the fertile earth for saying things like "my logic and your logic". I would infinitely prefer living in a world where you don't have to go back to the basics of logical thought with people before commencing with worthwhile discussion.

Gurdur

heh, I hate to be a party-pooper, but your premise is doubtful --- the best schools in logic in the 17th/18th centuries were run by the Jesuits, who made a point of teaching children logic.

Farren

Gurdur, even so, it can be argued that the intellectualism of the Jesuits and similar movements within Catholicism made the contemprorary Roman Catholic Church more amenable to science and less likely to go head to head with logic on many issues.

I don't tar all xians with the same brush. Obviously theres foolishness like a males-only celibate priesthood and the RC church's stand on abortion, but consider this

- The Vatican officially recognises Big Bang cosmology as the most rational and sensible explanation of the universes beginnings, and considers the Creation scriptures metaphors. I just read this reported by Stephen Hawkings, who was invited to a church-hosted conference on cosmology where the pope effectively asked cosmological experts to advise the church.

- Similarly the RCC endorses evolutionary theory

- The RCC has hosted two large conferences with Tibetan and other buddhists to encourage inter "faith" dialogue.

xians they may be, but bible thumping fundies they ain't (at least on a host of issues).

I've got a friend who lectures physics at Wits University here in Johannesburg, He's been published in several international peer-reviewed journals and was offered jobs at both Brown University and CERN, so he's credentials as a scientist are pretty solid. When I asked him once about his faith (coincidentally he's a Catholic) and how it relates to his science, his response was basically that good scientific reasoning takes precedence if there's a conflict.

His attitude is basically that if something doesn't make sense in Catholicism, its probably wrong, but nothings perfect.

It should also be mentioned that the tradition of christian apologetics began with the Catholic Church. While this has devolved into fake "science diplomas" from "Christian Universities" in some countries, its produced some pretty sophisticated philosophical thought in the RCC and helped inch the church towards modernity. The core idea of having to vindicate faith opens the door to discussion and evolution of the belief system.

My argument about teaching logics stands. Even if it doesn't deconvert people, I believe it will make them more logical and improve the ratio of information over noise in society.

beausoleil

Given the extent to which students are getting turned off science in our schools, I think the best thing would be to add compulsory religion to the national curriculum. It also accords with my experience of religious education.

The UK would be a nation of atheists in no time.

Salmon of Doubt

I went to a school where Christian religious education was compulsory, (even for the muslims) and in my class I don't know of one actual Christian That lesson was a chance to pass notes to each other, and laugh at the fundy teacher behind his back, so you're probably right, beausoleil!

Marlowe

The 'science' of logics is often unaffected by reality as well. The simple principle of exclusion is great in the rarified world of abstraction but down here on earth it is only useful in limited areas. Logic doesn't do a lot of good with quantum physics which contain fundamental paradoxes such as a photon being both a particle and a wave, and quarks that are and are not there. This is why the conclusions of QP are often decribed as non-intuitive, meaning they don't line up by logical principles. You can't start with a set of assumptions and arrive at quantum physics, only years of observations have led to the discoveries of how weird things are at that level. And most physicists say, if you think you understand quantum reality, then you don't understand it.

Logic is also woefully limited in dealing with human situations, where emotions are also non-intuitive, meaning a person can love someone as much as they hate them, kill someone they love, experience a bittersweet memory and so on and so on. I don't understand the reliance on logic to describe human phenomenon when we know without the slightest bit of a doubt that people are illogical at least as often as they are logical.

Do not mistake this for a rejection of logic - it is not. My point is that an over-reliance on logic is as misguided as a rejection of it. Logic is a tool to understand reality - it is not reality.

Um, Taoism rests on a basic understanding of paradox, that the world is paradoxical and that this must be embraced for harmony.

From the Tao Te Ching: Chapter VII
Verses 19-19a: "The Sage puts his person last and it comes first....without thought of self that he is able to accomplish his private ends."

Chapter XXII
Verse 50b: "He does not show himself, and so is conspicuous."

Just a couple of quotes to illustrate. The basic principle of Taoism is that of Non-Action wu wei, through which all is accomplished.

Ther is great wisdom in Taoism - and it has nothing to do with logic.

ps418

None of those things demonstrate any kind of "woeful" inadequacy of logic. For instance, there is no contradiction in saying that a particular memory evokes both negative and positive emotions. Also, its a nonsequiter to say that because people act illogically or experience conflicting emotions, it is somehow inappropriate to apply logic to the study of people. I have no idea about what you mean by "reliance on logic to describe human phenoma." Logic isnt some kind of descriptive tool or framework. Its about the formal structure of arguments.

Patrick

Farren

Marlowe,

I'm extremely familiar with Taoism. I have a copy of the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tze Tsu on my bookshelf and I've started recieving instruction in Chi Gung exercises from a Taoist. I think you've made an flawed assumption about what I'm proposing

I don't see logic as an entire living philosophy. Quite the contrary, I feel, as you do, that it is woefully inadequate in dealing with a wide range of human problems. There is knowledge and reason which flows entirely from the mere fact of being, and cannot be articulated - which is what, I think, many buddist and taoist beliefs and practices focus on.

I must respectfully submit, however, that simply stating that Taoism sees the world as paradoxical distorts the reality. My copy of the tao te ching is heavily commented by a chinese scholar and among the things he says is (I'll have to paraphrase because I can't find it right now):

Taoism sees contradiction, or paradox in the world as being nonexistent, the numerous references to, for instance, a material thing being both something and not that thing in the Tao te Ching illustrate how the human mind gives form function, and often mistakes this prescribed function for reality.

Furthermore, the construction of many koans and taoist idioms is intended to affront the senses with seeming paradoxes and absurdity to encourage the listener to think non-rationally, with thier whole being - but not irrationally or illogically. The distinction is subtle but important.

The "reasoning" or experience sought is outside of logic, not opposed to or invalidating logic in any way, in the same way that Godels theorem shows certain problems to be irretrievably outside of formal mathematical theory.

Taoism is not at all anti-logical, rather it is embraces and extends logic by including it in a world view that acknowledges the impossibility of knowing the whole universe by simply naming it, and the role of logic where it is useful. I know two lifelong taoists, and both are extremely logical people, hence my original statement.

As regards quantum physics, the view you espouse is also shared by many (that it is pregnant with fundamental paradoxes) - I suspect you've read the Dancing Wu Li Masters or The Tao of Physics, - but I would have to take issue with this as well.

The utility of quantum physics is not in doubt. The accuracy of its predictions are well recorded. The problem with understanding quantum physics to betray some fundamental irrationaility in the universe is the same as understanding taoism to be about true paradox. In order to "believe" the theory (the model as opposed to its predictions) of quantum physics, you must wholeheartedly accept the logic of its arguments.

It has been pointed out time and again that good science never sees the model as the thing it models. Quantum physics is useful, but its logical absurdities are just that: logical, not material absurdities. In fact, these are areas where the theory breaks down. Quantum Physics is by no means a perfect model.

There are calculations which yield infinities for one situation and useful results for a second, then must be renormalised, yielding infinities for the second situation to yield useful results for the first. If this model was representative of the real world we would have infinite or immeasurable amounts of energy emerging in everyday life, which we do not. Quite literally, when one part of the theory is operational, another disagrees with observation. This is clearly a problem with quantum physics, not a quality of the universe.

To return to my original point, I acknowledge and support the view that there are a vast number of mental processes useful to a fulfilling life as a human being, such as learning compassion and acting on intuition. However within its realm I think logic has massive utility. Its realm is that of conceptual (consciously thought and articulable) ideas rather than those of felt ideas and emotions. Since dogmatic beliefs systems contain both conceptual and emotional components, teaching logics would undoubted have a major impact on these beliefs.

Farren

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Unbeliever

I also would very much like to see logic and critical thinking taught in schools, but alas, I don't think it will happen any time soon. I'm afraid "the powers that be" (political, religious, corporate) are much happier with an electorate that cannot think critically or logically, since it is easier to manipulate in that condition than if people could actually think for themselves. So our children will continue to be taught what to think rather than how to think.:banghead: