• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It is Dangerous to Rely on Logical Reasoning Alone?

Is it usually dangerous to rely on logical reasoning alone?


  • Total voters
    25

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Dearest Reader,

I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.

Indeed, I cheerfully pee from a considerable height upon nearly all purely logical arguments outside of the noble fields of mathematics and logic itself. It seems to me that logic alone is in most (albeit not all) cases at least as likely to lead to absurdities as it is likely to lead to truths. I have observed someone being misled by logical reasoning alone time and time again.

As a general rule, reasoning by logic alone simply should not be indulged in whenever it is possible to back up a truth-claim with empirical evidence. In my esteemed opinion, one disregards that rule at great risk.

The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence*. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.

But what do you yourself make of all this?

Yours in peeing on bad ideas,

Sunstone

_________________

*EDIT: I should make something clear. By "empirical evidence", I am not talking about the mere appearance of empirical evidence, but rather the actuality of it.

For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The key, in my esteemed opinion, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.
Pretty much that. Logic without evidence is overall not nearly as effective and useful, and potentially just as reckless and dangerous as being purely guided by emotions.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh thank G-d I thought you were going to say something wishywashy about emotions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I suppose another way to look at it, Jedi are all logic, and fail the galaxy due to their logical approach of doing nothing, and are boring and dull to boot since they shy away from emotion; Sith are driven by emotion, reach staggering heights very quickly, and it's usually their undoing; the Gray Jedi, however, balancing logic and emotion, saves the galaxy from a Empire of tyranny as well as seemingly unstoppable invaders from another galaxy.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose another way to look at it, Jedi are all logic, and fail the galaxy due to their logical approach of doing nothing, and are boring and dull to boot since they shy away from emotion; Sith are driven by emotion, reach staggering heights very quickly, and it's usually their undoing; the Gray Jedi, however, balancing logic and emotion, saves the galaxy from a Empire of tyranny as well as seemingly unstoppable invaders from another galaxy.
Stoicism for Life.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
but even evidence is subject to interpretation and can be interpreted in many different ways. So who is right?

since not everything is straight forward.

purposes are created by man. logic is to serve a purpose and follows from the premises.

I am of the opinion that all man's knowledge is manipulation to serve a purpose, and explanations of things as they are is none attainable other than obvious observances. and even then what is obvious to one is not obvious to another.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
but even evidence is subject to interpretation and can be interpreted in many different ways. So who is right?

since not everything is straight forward.

purposes are created by man. logic is to serve a purpose and follows from the premises.

I am of the opinion that all man's knowledge is manipulation to serve a purpose, and explanations of things as they are is none attainable other than obvious observances. and even then what is obvious to one is not obvious to another.

What do you make of predictive hypotheses, then?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.
I think you could be falsely attributing poorly implemented logic with a fundamental failing of the concept itself. Logic isn’t supported by empirical evidence, evidence if a integral part of it. Logic is taking the evidence you do have and reaching indirect conclusions based upon it. There’s also an entirely separate aspect of what people actual do in response to those logical conclusions which, because we’re human, often aren’t logical.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.

But what do you yourself make of all this?

Something of a trick question. If by "alone" you mean "with no connection to empirical reality", then sure.

I can't help but feel that what you mean is that logic is not to be defamed by abusers, though.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.

Best post ever. Governor Brownback of Kansas needs to be the first to read this.

The Kansas tax cut experiment
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
But what do you yourself make of all this?

Logical reasoning, in my experience, explains what is plausible, usually though deductive reasoning. For logical reasoning to be submitted as truth or theory in most cases, empirical data must be applied.

If I'm not mistaken, the scientific method works in this fashion.

I'm not sure I'd call it dangerous, but, in my opinion, applying logic alone certainly isn't substantial.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Dearest Reader,

I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.

Indeed, I cheerfully pee from a considerable height upon nearly all purely logical arguments outside of the noble fields of mathematics and logic itself. It seems to me that logic alone is in most (albeit not all) cases at least as likely to lead to absurdities as it is likely to lead to truths. I have observed someone being misled by logical reasoning alone time and time again.

As a general rule, reasoning by logic alone simply should not be indulged in whenever it is possible to back up a truth-claim with empirical evidence. In my esteemed opinion, one disregards that rule at great risk.

The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence*. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.

But what do you yourself make of all this?

Yours in peeing on bad ideas,

Sunstone

_________________

*EDIT: I should make something clear. By "empirical evidence", I am not talking about the mere appearance of empirical evidence, but rather the actuality of it.

For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.
Logic is the seed. Empiricism is the fruit. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I can't resist adding the pun that those who use logic alone with no connection to actual reality are often called fruits.) :p
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Dearest Reader,

I am of the insufferable opinion that in most cases, logical reasoning alone is insufficient as a reliable means to truth.

Indeed, I cheerfully pee from a considerable height upon nearly all purely logical arguments outside of the noble fields of mathematics and logic itself. It seems to me that logic alone is in most (albeit not all) cases at least as likely to lead to absurdities as it is likely to lead to truths. I have observed someone being misled by logical reasoning alone time and time again.

As a general rule, reasoning by logic alone simply should not be indulged in whenever it is possible to back up a truth-claim with empirical evidence. In my esteemed opinion, one disregards that rule at great risk.

The key, I think, is to support logical reasoning with empirical evidence*. Logic and evidence are like the two wings of a bird -- for the bird to fly, you need both.

But what do you yourself make of all this?

Yours in peeing on bad ideas,

Sunstone

_________________

*EDIT: I should make something clear. By "empirical evidence", I am not talking about the mere appearance of empirical evidence, but rather the actuality of it.

For instance: The argument that cutting taxes on the rich will free up money they will then use to create jobs has the appearance of being an empirical argument. But it's not, because no one has ever amassed a weight of empirical evidence in support of it. People who accept the argument most likely accept it because it seems to them to make logical sense. However, because no body of empirical evidence exists in support of it -- and much empirical evidence contradicts it -- they are in no position to accept it on the grounds that it is supported by a weight of empirical evidence.

I'm not sure that it's "dangerous" to rely on logical reasoning alone, but it really depends on the situation or problem one is having to deal with. I think there are some who, in the course of a debate, get a bit too anal about "logic" or pointing out "logical fallacies," indicating an overemphasis on form at the expense of content. It's like nitpicking over grammar when there's no need for it.

The thing is, whenever people are arguing their case for something or other, they're not really trying to be logical. All they want is to win the argument, and they believe that hiding behind the mantle of "logic" will somehow bolster their case and give their position more credibility. But one might question whether the adversarial structure of a typical debate is even "logical," in and of itself.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I voted that I want my g-string back, but really am in the "Yes" camp: logic and reason are tools, not an end unto themselves (except in philosophy classes, and for most philosophy professors), and their usefulness depends on the assumptions and data with which they are used. Good data and assumptions makes for productive reasoning, poor data and assumptions makes for unproductive and/or dangerous reasoning.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
A great topic @Sunstone
And no, I wasn't taking a dig by rating the OP funny. I thought it uncovered a genuinely amusing feature of many conversations to the point that I've coined a phrase, "Just because something is logically consistent does not mean that it is necessarily true; it just means it is logically consistent." Duh!

I think if logic is used as the primary thrust of some kinds of arguments, it can mire the discussion rather rapidly due to the reality that humans animals do not live by logic alone. As @Quintessence has said on many occasions we are weavers of tales and we are, as a species, fired by the fancy of our imaginations.

Oh, well, if that's not what you were looking for I just go back and sit under my rock.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Best post ever. Governor Brownback of Kansas needs to be the first to read this.

The Kansas tax cut experiment
"Rather than Democrats overturning the tax measure, this was a case of Republicans in power looking at the effects of the tax cut on the economy and making the decision that it was, overall, a bad idea." Reaganomics. You can't live with it. You can't live without it, and it kills employment.
 
Top