Reason or Logic,which is more fundamental?

OK, thank god I'm not crazy. I got the logic part obviously since I can piece together 2 things to make some sense. Is this a correct assumption or sentence?

Honestly, that proof URL you gave me, I can't do that. I can ask however, can anyone here do what the proof the URL defines?

I am piecing some things together to make sense in order to be proved. Does this make sense? Would this define half of the process of proof?

SO, no one will be able to prove anything on this forum, except maybe share ideas and concepts/thoughts of what a process or system of an item/situation might be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL.

Maybe not hate, dislike.

Well, everyone can say that about anyone on this forum. It would be as valid as anything, lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup, a newer, updated, and more accurate reasoning.= Logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neither. As I said, simply conjoining propositions doesn't not make an argument.

What do you mean you "can't do that"?
I just directed you to that link so as to understand what it means to say that one is attempting to prove something.
This is not what you're attempting to do here.

No, and no.

Read the page again.
A proof is the confirmation of the truth value of a conclusion as derived by a valid deductive argument.

This is not what you're talking about.

Though I'm not quite sure what it is that you're talking about....

 

I still think a catologue of the useful processes in reason that are not logic - but also not illogical - is interesting. A kind of phenomenology of reason. What do we do when we come upon an assertion or set of assertions or an argument? What are the main processes we use to evaluate it?

To me one must engage non-logical processes, unless you are dealing with symbolic logic and perhaps even then - perception at least, but that's being fussy.

I find many references to reason in this thread very similar to references to religious entities. There is a sense of goodness and importance, but very little 'concrete' or that would distinguish 'it' from other 'things.'

 

I agree.
However, I couldn't do it. As far as I'm concerned, any process of reason is necessarily also a process of logic.

In both cases, logic.

Like what, for example?

I fully concur.

 

Is this not like asking for a catalogue of animals that are not birds - but also not non-birds?
In otherwords is logic / illogic not a digital position?
If a process is not logical then surely it is, by definition, illogical?

The catalogue would then, in my view, be a nil-return.

Or does your understanding of the nature of logic differ to mine?

 

No, I would say it is like saying a catalogue of of animals that are not mammals but also not invertebrates.

I am not arguing it is a matter of degree, but that there are more choices.

Logic, to me, is looking at how statements are linked in an argument.

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is therefore mortal.

The logical part of my reasoning breaks this down into near math.
But there are portions of my reasoning, for example checking the semantics of the word 'mortal', that do not involve logic, but are not illogical. I retrieve and mull over the word and its scope and meaning. (my example is perhaps not the best one because it is such a cliche this process happens incredibly quickly, but a hitherto not seen syllogism would probably press me to consider semantics consciously).

Funny I went on the web to find another example of syllogism and found this one.....

One process that I would argue is not logical but not illogical would be me mulling over whether it means they are all working on one posthole, these 60 men. If they are, I think the syllogism is false. In my 'analysis' I got a quick image of sixty men around one post hole. My calling up this image was not in the terrain of logic, but it certainly was not illogical. I reacted to the image with my own experience of digging and working with others. I was not thinking in words. I did not think....it would be a problem to get all those men around one hole, etc. I felt it was wrong. I don't think one can call processes such as calling up images, remembering, getting a felt sense somethign is wrong logical processes.

Of course I decided that the wording in the syllogism was misleading and that they did not mean some blitz single hole digging by a bunch of men.

Logic is work with symbols, including language. It looks at sequences of sentences and sees if conclusions are sound, valid etc. But thinking also uses processes that cannot be looked at in this way. When I consider an assertion, I will often check my own experiences for counter examples. While one can say colloquially that this is logical for me to do, the actual processes of calling up memories and experiencing those memories and deciding which apply or do not often happen non-verbally, include things like perception and to me are neither logical nor illogical. Or to put it better...

they are outside the realm of logic.

One cannot logically analyze my 'remembering'. Once I formulate in words my counterexample, for example, THEN one can bring to bear logical analysis. But for me reaching this 'use of a memory or counterexample' I have also used non-logical processes.

I covered some of this earlier in the thread. For example Post 49. jpapp's example of figuring out what was wrong with his or her car invovled perception. jpapp engages in sensory activity. This is not 'doing logic'. In fact you can make mistakes with perception that do not involve being illogical. 'He looked but did not see the __________ had a crack' I notice I later called this pre-reason, but I see no reason to hold perception outside of reasoning.

In post 96 I said

(which, Glaucon, you agreed with in post 105, but perhaps not quite getting that I was saying these things include non-logical processes.

Post 116 responding to SArkus

There is more where I make a case that certain kinds of evaluation and processing take place as a part of reasoning that are neither logical nor illogical. The use these things may get put to can be evaluated as logical or illogical, but the processes themselves are outside that realm.

Last I will add that felt sense of qualia play a role in reason. We decide we have thought enough because our process feels complete, for example. We have considered what is and what is not a chair sufficiently - by sifting through images of chairs and mulling on the semantics of 'chair' sufficiently to move on to the next step. This is an intuitive evaluation and I would say out of the bounds of logic, but critical. How can one logically decide that one has thought enough about a logic issue? We'd get an infinite regress.

 

See above.

 

You're going to have to help me out here Doreen.

Everything mentioned in your above post is strictly logical....

 

REad my additions and if you still do not get my point I will give a shot at reexplaining. Though I fear people are identifying with the verbal portions of their minds only.

 

Let me add this: I think you are confusing two meanings of the word logical.

I mean that there are processes where one is not doing logic. One is not working with assertions and drawing conclusions. When I say non-logical I mean that the process is beyond assertions, non-verbal generally and that the steps are ones that can be taken in a variety of sequences for varying periods of time, etc.

It may be quite correct to say that of each of these processes or acts that it was logical to do it.

But the process or act was not of logic. It was beyond logic.

Otherwise all that goes into sound reasoning is logic. We should have computers that can reason already. But the fact is that much of reasoning is beyond computers right now because they cannot spend time evaluating a memory to see if it is a counterexample by looking at remembered images. This is an analogue process with an experiential base, or a kind of sensory base. They cannot mull over the semantics of a word. These are things we can do and do non-verbally. We use qualia or intuition to evaluate and to evaluate when we are finished or when we should look more, perhaps somewhere else. We realize, for example, that there is a metaphor involved that might be skewing the issue. We realize this as a whole and cannot say why, sometimes.

Basically we are coming at the language in the argument from outside language and mulling over experiences that are outside language - in memories, or even via the senses if the reasoning is about a presenting issue. This is not of the domain of logic, though how we use all this may end up getting the approval rating of having been logical AS WE USED IT. But it was not all logic. Not remotely.

 

As an aside, I noticed that in Wikipedia it says...

Which is what ND asserted. I actually find Wiki to be fairly good on terms, but I obviously disagree with this one.

 

Yeah, Wiki is verrry tenuous when it comes to technical, especially philosophical, terms.

The Greek term logos, literally means "word" or "form".

Here's the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy definition:

logic: the general science of inference.


Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Ed., revised.


Obviously, it goes on from there by breaking down the different classifications.

This is an excellent site for a resource on logic in particular:

logic

scroll down to the logic section.

I suspect Doreen, that what you're getting at here [and I will respond to your earlier post later on...], is the difference between formal and informal logic. Technically speaking, all of which you've described as being "reasoning", but not necessarily "logic", is in fact logic, but rather of the informal variety...

 

Hi,
thanks for mentioning informal logic. I popped over to Stanford's Encyclopedia and found it quite interesting. I liked this on Slippery Slope, for example,

I have wondered about this. I mean there is some truth to the adage, given them an inch and they will take a mile. One needs more to make the case, but one cannot just dismiss it, out here in reality, by calling it slippery slope.

So thanks for the reference. On a sad note, however, I do not think what I am getting at is the difference between these two. I'll take a couple of days off on the issue - otherwise I will just rehash what I said. I think I can come at it from a different angle by showing how the decisions between steps and for what steps to take in one's lived process of reasoning are often and really necessarily intuitive. With that exciting coming attraction shown, I'll take a break.

 

Yep, the SEP can be difficult to navigate, but there's tons of reading there.

Yeah, fallacies are tricky.
Especially considering that there are, again, two types: formal, and informal.

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia page on fallacies is pretty good for this purpose.

fallacies

Fair enough.

I think that part of the problem here is that we're mixing levels [or approaches] of analysis. On the one hand, some of us are looking at this from a historical POV; which is more 'fundamental' [temporally]. On the other hand, some of us are looking at this from a structural POV [which is the correct level, IMO].

I really do suspect that what's nagging at you is the Formal/Informal distinction.
Enjoy.

 

It seems to me that what Doreen is getting at is that the reasons due to which we engage in logic/reasoning, cannot satisfactorily be explained with that logic/reasoning, while those reasons do guide our engagement in logic/reasoning - they guide how we enage in logic/reasoning.

Like when we go to school: Once we are at school, in the classroom, we do things there - listen, memorize, discuss, write, ...
But being in the classroom and doing those things does not explain why we went to school in the first place; and how and how well we do the things in school depends on a number of things we do outside of school.

 

Aaaah.
Perhaps you're right.

The old praxis vs. gnosis scenario.

Damn.. time to dig up Socrates....

 

I am not sure if this is it, but it feels very close. I am not talking about only motivations but perhaps you are using motivations as an analogy.
But the image may be a helpful one.

The teacher sees the child do these things.
This is analogous to the surface of reasoning, the public portion - what we assert, how we justify.
The child however, beneath any public moves and actions that could be called reasoning, spends a few moments irritated by something another child said. The child does not like their conclusion. The child explores the feeling and images arise. The child searches her memory for a counterexample. An image arises. The child examines this image - note, she does not think about it in words, so this is largely perception. Still without verbal processing the child decides the image is a counterexample. Somehow it does not feel like a good one, for reasons the child could not explain - tacit knowledge or intuition. The child decides, based on this non-verbal unease with the counterexample to keep looking in memory for something 'better'.

What the child does may turn out to have been part of producing a logical argument. But these processes are not in themselves logical. If she chooses a counterexample that is not quite right - while exploring her feeling something is off - she has not been illogical. And her rejection of the counterexample perhaps could have been made on logical grounds, if it were all verbalized, but it was not rejected on logical grounds, but rather on the feeling that something was not quite right about it. And that evaluation process, done with feelings or qualia, is not a logical sequence in an argument.

Something comes along that 'feels' like a better example. The child decides 'now I can speak' but again, non-linguistically. The child, not yet aware of her whole argument begins by saying ' But what about _________, that is an example of A, but you said all A are not B. This one is.' Now the child realizes that other people may not realize that _____________ is not A.
When I say 'she realizes' I mean that what could either be called a feeling of unease/qualia precedes a thought, 'Oh, they look confused. I see they don't get that it's an A.' This conclusion or guess may come after some seconds of mulling over their faces. Even if she is wrong about their reaction, I would not say she is illogical here. And her process of arriving at that decision need be neither logical nor illogical. We probably cannot know what it was, in fact. It may beyond her abilities to know also.

Around anything that could be analyzed by logic we have all these none verbal processes: remembering, contemplating, feelings of 'that's enough', urges to try something else, perceiving, evaluating via qualia - so far as we know, intuiting, etc.

These from the outside are not seen. What are seen are her assertions and arguments. These can be looked at as logical or illogical. But the processes that support her ongoing reasoning are neither of these. Though there may be flashes of logic interspersed. I think this is likely if significant time passes.

If we only had logic to work with when reasoning we could never stop. Because all her decisions, if they were based on logic, would need to be looked at to see if they were logical. Was it logical to only examine these two counterexamples? Was the 'that's enough' qualia logical? The poor kid would never get to argue her case. In fact she would end up in a spiral of introspection where the mental, verbal portions of the mind tried to logically justify all qualia, intuitions, quality of remembered images, non-linear jumps in the internal reasoning process - where she drops looking at counterexamples and spends a minute fussing over the semantics of a word.

And it is not logic that I use to connect words to their meanings or to the phenomena they refer to. Though logic can help.

Another way to explain part of this is that portions of this process are passive - we perceive images, they trigger feelings. I don't think these passive processes can be called logical or illogical either.

If I see a man cross the street am I being logical? If I see him and think he is a woman am I being illogical? My point here being that errors in these processes are not errors of logic, though part of the underpinnings of what the teacher sees as the child's reasoning may logical or illogical, much of it cannot be evaluated this way. Only its products can.

 

RAther hard for me to find a definitive use of both terms. But praxis is definitely where I am focusing.