It is Dangerous to Rely on Logical Reasoning Alone?

[Brickjectivity]

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.)

Quite. It was not logic which saved the world from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I do not remember who pointed that out to me, but it was Kennedy and Stanislav Petrov who bucked the rational action. The rational action was to hit the 'Launch' button, but they didn't do it and saved all of our lives. All the generals would have had us logically killed.

 

[columbus]

I don't see it as even possible to rely entirely on logic and evidence. Humans don't work that way. Vast amounts of our behavior is driven by instincts and habits and ignorance.
So striving to be logical about the right things, while also recognizing the limitations seems best.
I would argue that it's dangerous to believe that you rely entirely on logic, which some people seem to believe about themselves. Or that some decision one is making is logical when it isn't.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Is it usually dangerous to rely on logical reasoning alone?

Out of 19 voters I am the only 'No' voter so far. So I feel inclined to add comment to my vote.

My first question to the 'Yes' voters is if we don't rely on logical reasoning then what do we rely on? Maybe my difference is that I consider intelligent evaluation of all the evidence and argumentation on an issue to be part of the logical process.

 

[crossfire]

Is it usually dangerous to rely on logical reasoning alone?

Out of 19 voters I am the only 'No' voter so far. So I feel inclined to add comment to my vote.

My first question to the 'Yes' voters is if we don't rely on logical reasoning then what do we rely on? Maybe my difference is that I consider intelligent evaluation of all the evidence and argumentation on an issue to be part of the logical process.

The part I bolded and enlarged for you is empiricism. Keyword: evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quite. It was not logic which saved the world from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I do not remember who pointed that out to me, but it was Kennedy and Stanislav Petrov who bucked the rational action. The rational action was to hit the 'Launch' button, but they didn't do it and saved all of our lives. All the generals would have had us logically killed.

It seems there is a dispute about what is "rational".
I say it's quite rational to have the option of not launching thermonuclear
warfare as the default when one isn't absolutely positive that it's necessary.
This is because of evaluating the relative downsides & upsides of the alternatives.
It's a game theory thing.

But ultimately, the outcome of logical reasoning does depend upon one's
initial assumptions & values. Let's look at one set of alternative scenarios....
1) We attack, destroy the USSR, win the war with major casualties, &
remake the USSR in our image. Radiation is a world wide danger.
2) We don't attack, the USSR wins the war with fewer casualties on both sides,
& they remake the US in their image. There's a lesser worldwide radiation danger.
3) We don't attack. The USSR doesn't attack. No casualties, no radiation hazard,
& no regime changes.
Looking at these 3 options & the historical probabilities of actual attack vs false alarm, I'll pick #1.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

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.

I've been in spots where I "logiced" myself away from gut feelings. Bad idea. Better to use logic to figure out why you're having those gut feelings. Using logic to get away from it is as bad as impulsively reacting to gut feelings.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

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

That's ok!

We love you even if you ARE insufferable!

 

[Brickjectivity]

It seems there is a dispute about what is "rational".

...which is another reason that logic is not the only basis for making decisions.

But ultimately, the outcome of logical reasoning does depend upon one's
initial assumptions & values. Let's look at one set of alternative scenarios....
1) We attack, destroy the USSR, win the war with major casualties, &
remake the USSR in our image. Radiation is a world wide danger.
2) We don't attack, the USSR wins the war with fewer casualties on both sides,
& they remake the US in their image. There's a lesser worldwide radiation danger.
3) We don't attack. The USSR doesn't attack. No casualties, no radiation hazard,
& no regime changes.
Looking at these 3 options & the historical probabilities of actual attack vs false alarm, I'll pick #1.

I don't disagree, and all of the options get confusing. Picking #1 is what the generals want Kennedy to do. #2 is what Stanislov Petrov is ordered to do. Neither is given #3 as an option. USA says second strike is guaranteed. USSR says first strike is guaranteed. Neither is bluffing, yet no missiles launch.

 

[sun rise]

I....I can't really argue with most folk here. Seems most of us are on the same page!

Uh oh. We're in trouble now. If too many people agree there must be something wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Uh oh. We're in trouble now. If too many people agree there must be something wrong.

I disagree.

 

[sun rise]

But on to my own opinion. The gospel truth, ST:TOS, has taught us that relying on logic alone leads to errors. As for my proof, regard the liar's paradox:

 

[icehorse]

I just wanted to bring another perspective into the thread:

There are cognitive scientists who focus on the implicit mind / explicit mind duality. The explicit mind is that part that can talk and write and listen. It thinks it's in charge of everything. It's not.

The implicit mind can't talk, but more and more it's being shown that the implicit mind is what allows us to do MOST of what we can do - including thinking logically. E.g., experts often have "intuitions" that they cannot voice. This "expert intuition" is often a reliable, repeatable skill - it's just not speakable, not describable. But it can be quite logical.

 

[sun rise]

I just wanted to bring another perspective into the thread:

There are cognitive scientists who focus on the implicit mind / explicit mind duality. The explicit mind is that part that can talk and write and listen. It thinks it's in charge of everything. It's not.

The implicit mind can't talk, but more and more it's being shown that the implicit mind is what allows us to do MOST of what we can do - including thinking logically. E.g., experts often have "intuitions" that they cannot voice. This "expert intuition" is often a reliable, repeatable skill - it's just not speakable, not describable. But it can be quite logical.

I just learned something new! Thanks.

 

[crossfire]

Even the Kalama Sutta agrees with Sunstone!
Kalama Sutta: The Instruction to the Kalamas

 

[Revoltingest]

...which is another reason that logic is not the only basis for making decisions.

Another way to view it is that logic is always worth using, when it can be used.
But it isn't always usable when the premises are ill defined.
And of course, premises are often wrong or relevant ones are igored.

I don't disagree, and all of the options get confusing. Picking #1 is what the generals want Kennedy to do. #2 is what Stanislov Petrov is ordered to do. Neither is given #3 as an option. USA says second strike is guaranteed. USSR says first strike is guaranteed. Neither is bluffing, yet no missiles launch.

Sounds like Kennedy was applying logic to #3 premises.

Btw, I'm uncomfortable with the term, "logic", since it implies formality & completeness.
I prefer "reasoning", which is fuzzier (in the sense of "fuzzy logic").

 

[Revoltingest]

....relying on logic alone leads to errors.

In my experience, logic is not at fault for contradictions...just premises.
In math, contradictions found by logic are used to disprove a hypothesis.
(I remember doing this, but I don't remember examples. I'm old.)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

USSR says first strike is guaranteed.

Kruschev said that a nuclear strike would be launched in response to any military efforts to take out the missiles in Cuba...or interfere with their ships, both military and "civilian"

In the meantime, despite the lack of direct diplomatic communications channels, BOTH sides were trying to find a way to blink with little/no loss of dignity/reputation...they eventually settled on the third option because leaders of both nations agreed that a settlement was better than gambling on the other side not obliterating them...but both sides had an awful lot of people in the respective governments clamoring to use their nukes first...