what comes first , reason or logic ? and why ?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » what comes first , reason or logic ? and why ?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

north
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:45 pm
I think that logic is the consequence of reason , why ?

because reason gathers in knowledge and dwells upon and come to a conclusion, whereas logic simply dwells upon what the reasoned conclusion gives it
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:10 am
@north,
You might enjoy this article: http://www.unc.edu/~hofweber/papers/validity.pdf The author argues that logics are idealisations of everyday reasoning and miss the point that everyday reasoning allows for exceptions.
 
north
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:28 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;139481 wrote:
You might enjoy this article: http://www.unc.edu/~hofweber/papers/validity.pdf The author argues that logics are idealisations of everyday reasoning and miss the point that everyday reasoning allows for exceptions.


boring , boring , boring .....

to your last half of your statement , AGREED
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 05:46 am
@north,
north;139478 wrote:
I think that logic is the consequence of reason , why ?

because reason gathers in knowledge and dwells upon and come to a conclusion, whereas logic simply dwells upon what the reasoned conclusion gives it


Logic is the use of reason.
 
Rwa001
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 03:36 am
@kennethamy,
I'm slightly bewildered by the question. In our world (I might even go so far as to say our universe) logic exists independent of reasoning. (A v ~A) is true whether it has been reasoned or not.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:46 am
@Rwa001,
Rwa001;139831 wrote:
I'm slightly bewildered by the question. In our world (I might even go so far as to say our universe) logic exists independent of reasoning. (A v ~A) is true whether it has been reasoned or not.


That is true, of course. But we can only know it through reason. That is why when we are being logical, we are being reasonable too.
 
Rwa001
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:04 am
@kennethamy,
Even then you're presupposing that something does not exist until we know it. That's certainly an argument one can make and argue for, but it seems unlikely to me. After all, gravity held us here on earth before we had any concept of it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:07 am
@Rwa001,
Rwa001;139888 wrote:
Even then you're presupposing that something does not exist until we know it. That's certainly an argument one can make and argue for, but it seems unlikely to me. After all, gravity held us here on earth before we had any concept of it.


How am I presupposing that? I don't believe that is true. Not at all. I agree with you. Things can and do exist before we know of them.
 
Rwa001
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:19 am
@kennethamy,
I took the 'but' in your first response to my post to imply contradiction to what I said. It seems you didn't mean it that way. My apologies.

I agree that we can't arrive at logic without reasoning, but the existence of logic (or at least, the logical rules that govern the universe) predate reasoning.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:02 am
@north,
Let us say that reasoning depends on employing logic---illogical reasoning is then a contradiction in terms. Then logic (rules) is intellectually prior to reasoning; or: one must know the rules (in a general sense) before one can reason.

The question then becomes, how do we "know the rules"?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:45 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;139909 wrote:
Let us say that reasoning depends on employing logic---illogical reasoning is then a contradiction in terms. Then logic (rules) is intellectually prior to reasoning; or: one must know the rules (in a general sense) before one can reason.

The question then becomes, how do we "know the rules"?


Illogical reasoning is no more a contradiction than is terrible cooking. You can reason illogically just as well as you can cook badly. After all, "X reasoned very well" is not a tautology. And "a fallacious argument" is not a contradiction.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139929 wrote:
Illogical reasoning is no more a contradiction than is terrible cooking. You can reason illogically just as well as you can cook badly. After all, "X reasoned very well" is not a tautology. And "a fallacious argument" is not a contradiction.


I think a conclusion can be illogical, that is, it does not follow or is senseless, and I think an argument can be illogical (perhaps it is invalid?), but how can one reason illogically? Do you just mean one's reasoning was fallacious? If so, aren't some examples of fallacious reasoning, logical?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:16 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139946 wrote:
I think a conclusion can be illogical, that is, it does not follow or is senseless, and I think an argument can be illogical (perhaps it is invalid?), but how can one reason illogically? Do you just mean one's reasoning was fallacious? If so, aren't some examples of fallacious reasoning, logical?


How could fallacious reasoning (a fallacious argument, I suppose you mean) be "logical"?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:17 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139949 wrote:
How could fallacious reasoning (a fallacious argument, I suppose you mean) be "logical"?


I do not know. But is fallacious reasoning what you meant by illogical reasoning? If not, what is illogical reasoning?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:27 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139950 wrote:
I do not know. But is fallacious reasoning what you meant by illogical reasoning? If not, what is illogical reasoning?


"I've lost 20 times in a row on this slot machine, so I'm bound to win soon"

?
-edit-
Well, that would be fallacious reasoning.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:39 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139950 wrote:
I do not know. But is fallacious reasoning what you meant by illogical reasoning? If not, what is illogical reasoning?



The term is so vague that I suppose that this is a case when you have to ask what someone means by it, instead of what the term means, since it does not seem to mean anything in particular. But, what I mean by it is reasoning when the premises fail to support the conclusion (maybe in a particularly flagrant way).

---------- Post added 03-15-2010 at 01:41 PM ----------

Jebediah;139951 wrote:
"I've lost 20 times in a row on this slot machine, so I'm bound to win soon" Anyway, that is only an example of illogical reasoning, not a definition.

?
-edit-
Well, that would be fallacious reasoning.


Maybe not on the frequency theory of probability (and depending on what you mean by "soon")
 
north
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 12:12 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;139909 wrote:
Let us say that reasoning depends on employing logic---illogical reasoning is then a contradiction in terms. Then logic (rules) is intellectually prior to reasoning; or: one must know the rules (in a general sense) before one can reason.

The question then becomes, how do we "know the rules"?


the rules are that reason(ing) comes first

that logic is the consequence of reason , but why is this so ?

because logic is based on reasoning , and reasoning ( the thinking about ) is based on the information given , then comes the logic

inotherwords , can logic dwell upon anything in the absence of information ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 12:25 pm
@north,
north;139961 wrote:
the rules are that reason(ing) comes first

that logic is the consequence of reason , but why is this so ?

because logic is based on reasoning , and reasoning ( the thinking about ) is based on the information given , then comes the logic

inotherwords , can logic dwell upon anything in the absence of information ?


Since the rules of logic are taken from reasoning, just as the rules of chess are culled from how people play chess, if anything, the reasoning precedes the rules of logic. I don't see how any of this has to do with information, or the content the rules are applied to. But, as John Locke said, God did not fashion man to have two legs, and then leave it up to Aristotle to make them reasonable.
 
north
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 12:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139964 wrote:
Since the rules of logic are taken from reasoning, just as the rules of chess are culled from how people play chess, if anything, the reasoning precedes the rules of logic.


agreed


Quote:
I don't see how any of this has to do with information, or the content the rules are applied to.


because information is within the rules , the rules are based on the information on how each piece can move and can't move
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 01:47 pm
@north,
Logic is a normative science to achieve the specific goal of truth.

Logic is design to be truth preserving, and that is highly useful.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » what comes first , reason or logic ? and why ?
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/20/2014 at 08:10:40