what comes first , reason or logic ? and why ?

@TuringEquivalent,

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. 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.

TuringEquivalent;139982 wrote:

Logic is a normative science to achieve the specific goal of truth.

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

true

assuming the logic following from the reasoning is true

there are four situations with reasoning ;

1) the reasoning is correct and the logic that follows is correct

2) the reasoning is correct but the following logic is incorrect

3) the reasoning is incorrect but the following logic is correct

4) the reasoning is incorrect and the following logic is incorrect

inconclusion it is the Reasoning which dictates where the logic goes

and reason is based on information given

@north,

If two people play chess (rather than pretend to play chess), then they follow rules that they have learned. It doesn't seem likely that they sit down in front of a chessboard and by accident make up the (correct) rules. If they argue about an en passant move, they look up the rules in a chess book.

And isn't this what happens when people employ reason? If there is an disagreement about, say, a conclusion, cannot they resolve it by deciding if it follows logically (again, they look up the rules).

It is only in a loose sense that we use "reason" to stand for any kind of state of affairs. "Tom is a reasonable man" only indicates he has good sense and uses "sound" judgment. "Tom produced reasons for his action" only indicates that he explained why he did something; consider: "Tom produced reasons for his action, but no one believed him" or another likely outcome, "Tom produced reasons for his actions, but they were false and self-serving." In the weak sense, illogical reasons seem to make sense in common language.

But if we are taking "reason" in a much stronger- - - one could even go so far as to say "philosophical"- - - sense, then the expectations seem to demand that the reasoning does not violate the laws of logic. And if there is disagreement about whether reasoning is employed or not, isn't this solved by pointing to fallacies employed?

@jgweed,

jgweed;140036 wrote:

If two people play chess (rather than pretend to play chess), then they follow rules that they have learned. It doesn't seem likely that they sit down in front of a chessboard and by accident make up the (correct) rules. If they argue about an en passant move, they look up the rules in a chess book.

agreed

Quote:

And isn't this what happens when people employ reason? If there is an disagreement about, say, a conclusion, cannot they resolve it by deciding if it follows logically (again, they look up the rules).

not if the reasoning is incorrect in the first place

for the logic will continue on the path of illogic for logical rules would confine the reasoning

reasoning is fundamental basis of creativity , discovery

Quote:

It is only in a loose sense that we use "reason" to stand for any kind of state of affairs. "Tom is a reasonable man" only indicates he has good sense and uses "sound" judgment. "Tom produced reasons for his action" only indicates that he explained why he did something; consider: "Tom produced reasons for his action, but no one believed him" or another likely outcome, "Tom produced reasons for his actions, but they were false and self-serving." In the weak sense, illogical reasons seem to make sense in common language.

then if Tom has self-serving reasoning , then his reasoning would be corrected by further reasoning by others

Quote:

But if we are taking "reason" in a much stronger- - - one could even go so far as to say "philosophical"- - - sense, then the expectations seem to demand that the reasoning does not violate the laws of logic. And if there is disagreement about whether reasoning is employed or not, isn't this solved by pointing to fallacies employed?

the laws of logic , are the laws of logic , only

not the laws of reason

@north,

The previous posts have caused me a lot of confusion.

Quote:

assuming the logic following from the reasoning is true

there are four situations with reasoning ;

1) the reasoning is correct and the logic that follows is correct

2) the reasoning is correct but the following logic is incorrect

3) the reasoning is incorrect but the following logic is correct

4) the reasoning is incorrect and the following logic is incorrect

inconclusion it is the Reasoning which dictates where the logic goes

and reason is based on information given

What do you mean the logic following the reason is 'true'? Something can be either logically invalid, logically valid and sound, or logically valid and unsound. A valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. A sound argument is one that is valid, and contains all true premises. An invalid argument is one in which the premises may be false and the conclusion true. And a valid but unsound argument is one in which if the premises were true the conclusion would be true, however it contains false premises.This is how our logic system functions, and it functions this way regardless of the existence of reason. Reason follows the path of logic, a path which exists independently of the existence of reasoning or information.

Also, you're number 2 can't happen. At least not if I'm understanding it correctly. If the reasoning is correct (you have true premises that necessarily entail a true conclusion) then the logic can't be incorrect (not that I know what you even mean by logic being incorrect)

Quote:

not if the reasoning is incorrect in the first place

for the logic will continue on the path of illogic for logical rules would confine the reasoning

reasoning is fundamental basis of creativity , discovery

Your first part is just wrong. If the reasoning is incorrect, that is to say, they are trying to prove a conclusion using false premises, then the argument is invalid. It doesn't 'continue on the path of illogic'. It doesn't even matter if the conclusion is true or false. It ends at invalid.

Logic is like physics. It is a set of laws or axioms that exists independently of people being aware of them.

As a side note, you're using a very broad definition of reasoning if you're really suggesting it is the fundamental basis of creativity.

@north,

It is like this people. When you hit by car first then you will never walk in the middle of the road.

So form your own reason and logic.

---------- Post added 03-15-2010 at 09:56 PM ----------

Reasons are applied logic

@pondfish,

Logic is just the form of reason isn't it? Reason is the faculty of mentally juggling abstractions, and logic is just the rules whereby this is done.

@richard mcnair,

richard_mcnair;140093 wrote:

Logic is just the form of reason isn't it?

yes

but based on what is given as far as information

Quote:

Reason is the faculty of mentally juggling abstractions,

yes

hence discovery , and the progress of understanding of things

Quote:

and logic is just the rules whereby this is done.

ah spock , again

@north,

If logic is coming from a human perspective and is based on "what is valid" or inferred based on experiment then yes, we can map out tendencies. These *tendencies* in actuality are open to stochastic variables Wink

Logic and reason are inseperable to the human experience (people vary-hence schizophrenia) and *NOT* to mention nuances of the english language.

Logic to me is a concept which is very applicable economics especially through the medium of *ceteris paribus*.

@north,

Reasons are applied documented/undocumented logic.

@north,

It all depends what we mean by "logic." I think there's a transcendental logic that is the foundation of reason. P = P.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;141704 wrote:

It all depends what we mean by "logic." I think there's a transcendental logic that is the foundation of reason. P = P.

The law of identity is the foundation of reason? Maybe. Why do you say that? But the law of identity is not transcendental logic (whatever that may be). It is one of the "laws of thought" or Aristotelian logic. The others are, ~(p & ~p) (the law of non-contradiction) and (p or ~p) (the law of the excluded middle). If one is "transcendental" (whatever that means) then son are the others, since they are all logically equivalent to one another, and, logically speaking, say the very same thing.

You should not talk about logic without knowing some.

@north,

Reason is applied logic. If applied logic for that context is wrong then reason is wrong.

There are people apply wrong logic in wrong context. Belief whores do that.

@pondfish,

pondfish;141717 wrote:

Reason is applied logic. If applied logic for that context is wrong then reason is wrong.

on what is logic based on then ?

@north,

I didn't read through this whole discussion so I'm sorry if this has already been covered.
I think that Logic is a tool used to make predictions about the future. Math is the purest form of logic because the predictions you get are always right. If you take 2 apples and add them 2 other apples you will always get 4 apples.

So when you are using Logic in things other than Math you can't be absolutely certain of the outcome. You take an assumption/observation and you logically predict an outcome. EXAMPLE: He is fairly tall (assumption/observation) therefore he can probably dunk (predicted outcome). SO you take a reason and you logically predict an outcome based on that reason. So reasons/observations/assumptions are perceived first then we make logical predictions based on them. If your assumptions or logic are faulty and/or inaccurate you will come up with an inaccurate prediction.

Hope that makes as much sense on paper as it does in my head.

@north,

How about ideal logic as an abstraction of the structure of reason? I would call this, with Witt, "transcendental" logic..

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;150684 wrote:

How about ideal logic as an abstraction of the structure of reason? I would call this, with Witt, "transcendental" logic..

That must be it! What an insight! Suddenly the clouds part.

@north,

Logic keeps our Reason clean.

YouTube - Massengil Douche Commercial

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;150684 wrote:

How about ideal logic as an abstraction of the structure of reason?

then the logic becomes reasoning

@north,

I would say that reason and logic are separate things though can be combined. for example it is reasonable to buy your loved one a birthday present, but there is no logical reason to buy a present for someone because it is the same date they were born.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 07:16 PM ----------

sorry I just realized that didn't address the question but what I think is that if you are reasoning using logic than you are doing both at the same time but it is possible to reason using other methods such as emotion.

@north,

Reason is the application of logic by thinking subjects. Logic exists without subjects to reason with it just as the circle exists without subjects to conceive of or perceive it. Logic comes first.

Philosophy Forum

what comes first , reason or logic ? and why ?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know