The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOGIC and REASON

Author: oromagi
logic
oromagi
Democracy
reason
infinity

Posts

Total: 52
Topic's author
#1
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
In another TOPIC I argued:

  • "but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee.  Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications.  Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable.  Infinity is logical but not reasonable.  The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable."


Topic's author
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
3RU7AL asked:

->@oromagi
because not all logic is reasonable. 
please explain

Infinity is logical but not reasonable. 
no, no it is not logical

The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
please explain

Topic's author
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL

  • Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason.
  • Logic is an important element of reason but hardly the whole of reasoning, logic does not consider priority or scale, scope or impact.  As Asimov used to say, "A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
    • Infinity is a logical notation but not a truly comprehendible or provable idea outside  of  the logical system of mathematics. 
    • Pi, for example, is an irrational number because it cannot be expressed as the ratio between two real numbers.  Because pi is irrational, if the diameter of circle is  a real number, then the circumference of that circle can't be expressed as a real number,  we've only proven that takes a string of at least 5 trillion numbers to approximate that value though reason tells us that a circle must have a specific length defined by some real number eventually.
The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
  • It is not logical to love unconditionally or surrender your material wealth or submit to God's providence because logic cannot quantify peace or dignity or suffering or sacrifice.  Human values range far beyond the capacity of logical systems to describe.  To invert Asimov, humans are better at reason than logic.


#4
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@oromagi
Logic is the rules of reason.

I would contest the idea that the sermon on the mount isn’t logical 
Topic's author
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I would contest the idea that the sermon on the mount isn’t logical 

I'm open to correction and this seems as likely a topic as any to make that claim.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
Reason is not necessarily logical.

And logic is not necessarily reasonable.
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
though reason tells us that a circle must have a specific length defined by some real number eventually.
you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
From  Oxford Dictionary:

rea·son

verb

  1. think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
    "humans do not reason entirely from facts"

Topic's author
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
I know you've been looking for an opportunity to use that word "conflating" ever since I pointed out to you earlier this week that you were conflating the word SEMANTICS with the notion of SEMANTIC ARGUMENT (and not really getting that right either). 

Unfortunately for your triumphant moment of "J'accuse,  hypocrite!," that's not my usage of the word REASON you are disagreeing with- that is Issac Asimov who, as I noted above, I was directly quoting. 

If you did not know it already Isaac Asimov, in addition to being
  • the greatest Science Fiction writer of all time, a major source of inspiration for Sci Fi culture- Star Wars Star Trek - really anything with galactic empires or robots in it,
  • the guy who coined many popular scientific words like "robotics,"
  • the most prolific author in human history with over 600 books published, etc
    • Asimov was also a prolific author of scientific textbooks in both Russian and English and as as such
      • has written multiple  popular college textbooks about logic and reason in both Russian and English.
  • Asimov was also particularly well known for the efficiency, intellect, and care of his word choices
    • and also wrote several books on effective writing, particularly science writing.


As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.

Topic's author
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@FLRW
rea·son

verb

  1. think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
    "humans do not reason entirely from facts"
Precisely.
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.
argumentum ad verecundiam
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
rea·son

verb

  1. think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
    "humans do not reason entirely from facts"
Precisely.
by a process of logic
Topic's author
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.
argumentum ad verecundiam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy (argument from inappropriate authority): an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.

Since I made a lot of effort to demonstrate that Asimov is one of the all time greatest authorities on the proper use of the word reason, your knee-jerk resort to claims of fallacy without understanding how that fallacy functions is silly and super fucking fallacious itself.
Topic's author
#15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I said:
  • Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs REASON.
Oxford said:
  • [REASON] forms "judgments by a process of logic."
These statements are in agreement.  What are you failing to understand?



#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I said:
  • Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs REASON.
Oxford said:
  • [REASON] forms "judgments by a process of logic."
These statements are in agreement.  What are you failing to understand?
how do you specifically propose we disentangle "logic" from "reason"
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.
argumentum ad verecundiam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy (argument from inappropriate authority): an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.

Since I made a lot of effort to demonstrate that Asimov is one of the all time greatest authorities on the proper use of the word reason, your knee-jerk resort to claims of fallacy without understanding how that fallacy functions is silly and super fucking fallacious itself.
asimov is not the one true arbiter of language itself
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
by using this quote to make your point, you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"

you are doing this
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
I really wish I knew what misinformed souls are liking your posts here so I can remember not to expect too much of them.

One of the flavors of "reasonable" is a synonym for "common sense" and another is "agreeable", the definition of "reasonable" that refers to reasoning is synonymous with "logical".

You attempt to reduce your original assertion that logic is not reasonable to noting that all arguments are set within a context (the premises) that may be false for reasons of "priority or scale, scope or impact". This is dishonest.

As for your appeal to authority, I have explained before and I will link back to that explanation on request why it is in all cases useless for the purposes of debate. You merely prove it as you are cornered into whining "but he's so great", it's a pathetic bait to turn things towards red herrings of character and expertise.

You didn't understand how Asimov was using the word "reasonable" in that sentence, if he had used it the way you assumed it he could have been wrong; if the words were defined differently you could have been right about the usage of the words, but you would still been profoundly wrong in your epistemological attacks on logic.

There is no other path to truth, and any attempt to demonstrate that there is attempts to stand on logic (whether it finds a foothold or not). That is what an axiom is, an inescapable premise.
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is what an axiom is, an inescapable premise.
bingo
Topic's author
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you specifically propose we disentangle "logic" from "reason"
why would you want to disentangle them?

As I said, "Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason."  What good is one without the other?


Topic's author
#22
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
asimov is not the one true arbiter of language itself
No, just one of the all-time great masters.

If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.


Topic's author
#23
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
by using this quote to make your point, you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"

you are doing this
Asimov disagrees. 

Again, If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.


Topic's author
#24
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
your original assertion that logic is not reasonable
  • Obviously false.   I said that the difference between logic and reason  is that logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason.
    • It is irrational to infer "A is never B" from the statement "A is an element of the set AB"

#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Asimov disagrees. 
i'll keep that in mind the next time i speak with asimov
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • It is irrational to infer "A is never B" from the statement "A is an element of the set AB"
are you suggesting that logic is like pure mathematics

and reason is like applied mathematics ?
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Again, If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.
i'm very impressed with your ability to convince yourself
Topic's author
#28
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
i'll keep that in mind the next time i speak with asimov
You should read him.  He is the best.  

Nightfall
I, Robot
Robot Series
Foundation Series

are all masterpieces of  English literature in any genre. 

Well-
I, Robot is maybe a little too reliant on dialogues to really be great literature.  I have argued elsewhere on this site that the Will Smith movie does a grave disservice to Asimov by ignoring his narrative and replacing the female lead with Will Smith.


#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
From an interview with Asimov by Bill Moyers in 1988.

MOYERS: If God is dead, everything is permitted. That’s what scares them.

ASIMOV: Well, on the contrary. They assume that human beings have no feeling about what is right and wrong. Is the only reason you are virtuous because that’s your ticket to heaven? Is the only reason you don’t beat your children to death, because you don’t want to go to hell? It seems to me that it’s insulting to human beings to imply that only a system of rewards and punishments can keep you a decent human being. Isn’t it conceivable a person wants to be a decent human being because that way he feels better? Because that way the world is better?
I would like to think — I don’t believe that I’m ever going to heaven or hell. I think that when I die there will be nothingness. That’s what I firmly believe. That does not mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and rape and everything else, because I don’t fear punishment. For one thing, I fear worldly punishment. And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of my own conscience. I have a conscience. It doesn’t depend on religion. And I think it’s so with other people, too.
Besides, even in societies in which religion is very powerful, there’s no shortage of crime and sin and misery and terrible things happening, despite heaven and hell. I mean, I imagine if you go down death row, bunch of murderers maybe are waiting for execution, ask them if they believe in God. They’ll tell you yes.
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Is the only reason you are virtuous because that’s your ticket to heaven?
those who act only for the promise of reward (heaven) are mercenaries

those who act only out of fear of punishment (hell) are slaves