Logic vs. Reason

[Faust]

I have noticed what I perceive as a general confusion among some members of this forum between the concepts of logic and reason.
I would therefore like to submit that logic is a science/art that is subject to laws/rules,and reason is a mental function that is subject to accumulated knowledge/experience.
I would further state that logic could be viewed as a ladder that reason climbs to a level of understanding. I would prefer to use scaffold instead if it were not for the implication of impermanence.
Your thoughts?
Faust

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Good post, Faust. To be honest, I've never even thought about this before, but I can agree with what you have written here. I may ruminate on this baby a while, then come back with some input, but, at first blush, I do not disagree with what you have posited.

TVOR

 

[Master Vigil]

Logic is basically reasoning put into another term. Logic is used to reason correctly and validly. You cannot reason without logic, and you cannot use logic without reason. They cannot be separated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logic is the formal study of inference.
Reasoning is the interplay of deduction, induction, and abduction.

 

[Fluffy]

So are you basically saying that logic is art and reason is painting? (just to put it into terms I can understand )

 

[Valjean]

Logic is an algebra, with formal rules. Reason is a little more freewheeling.

 

[HelpMe]

.beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Master Vigil]

.beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Did you use logic or reason to come to this conclusion. Or both? Is your statement logically valid no matter how much reason you use? Can you reason well without doing it logically? Why is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Can you validly prove this statement logically without bad reasoning?

 

[HelpMe]

feel free to substitute the word 'beauty' with any of the subjects('logic','reason',ect.) of your questions.

 

[No*s]

I tend to regard the two as working synergetically, and that either one without the other is dead.

For instance, this is a perfectly valid logical argument:

All men have skin that is pink with purple polka-dots
I am a man
Therefore I have skin that is pink with purple polka-dots.

The syllogism is perfectly logical. However, the minor premise is just plain wrong, so the whole system is suspect. It doesn't matter that it's logical.

In other cases, a reasonable statement may not be logical or testable. For instance:

It is good to treat other people with love.

This is an axiom and cannot be established with logic. In fact, it can't be established at all. Still, it is a statement that is wholly compatible with reason.

However, the two should always work together, lest we take up a belief system that results in bombing abortion clinics, flying into world trade centers, or killing more than 25% of a population in a nation to improve the lives of the others. Sadly, all those have happened.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is good to treat other people with love.

This is an axiom and cannot be established with logic. In fact, it can't be established at all. Still, it is a statement that is wholly compatible with reason.

How would you apply that dictum to the Gestapo in Germany and Eastern Eyrope or the Janjaweed in Darfur?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I concur Faust;

Your logic stands to reason!

How would you apply that dictum to the Gestapo in Germany and Eastern Eyrope or the Janjaweed in Darfur?

It has been noted elsewhere that sometimes you must love some people to death.

 

[No*s]

How would you apply that dictum to the Gestapo in Germany and Eastern Eyrope or the Janjaweed in Darfur?

Since the axiom dictates what is going on in Sudan (and I think you're referring to the Ukraine) and the Ukraine is wrong, we should respond.

In the latter case, the we should apply pressure for a whole new elections with stricter rules. Other than that, nothing. Sometimes all we can do is "Do no harm." If we forcibly put in the candidate favored by the West, then the rest of Eastern Europe will wall up, and worse, there could be a civil war. If we suddenly jumped ship to the incumbant, then there could well be a civil war, and we just abandoned the ones our nations supported. If we do not act, there is a chance of civil war.

I'm hoping that another election with stricter rules, and outside parties (from both Russia and the West) would look in. I would say "disinterested parties," but there are none.

With reference to Darfur, I'm less informed. As I understand it, the Sudanese government has been arming the various tribes in order to have them perform the dirty work, and then they can say "I'm sorry, we don't have control of the people."

Basically, we have the U.N. It's not the best of institutions, but I can see no other tool. The first thing I can think of is an offer that would reward the Sudanese government for reversing it and actually disarming the tribes. Unfortunately, I can't see those having much effect. After all, if they were thinking of the good of their country and not their particular race, this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, coupled with a U.N. ultimatum, one with special force towards the leaders, it could make it the "most profitable" alternative.

I'm no big fan of the U.N., but I can't think of a better tool here.

I wish I had better answers, but I don't. Sometimes, it seems that the only choices available are the ones that do the least harm.