On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Shane Taylor wrote:
> Brian Siano wrote:
> > It may be helpful to recognize that formal logic is just
> > that: a formalization of reason. Humans have always
> > reasoned, even in hunter-gatherer societies (say,
> > figuring out what part of the savannah might have
> > some decent veggies, what the ibex might run if the
> > tribe attacks from downwind, etc.). We may do it
> > imperfectly, and imperfect reasoning may actually
> > serve us sufficiently in many respects. But that's
> > no reason to dismiss logic as something appropriate
> > only for specific environments.
>
> Yes, exactly! Here's what I'd just written when the above hit my inbox:
>
> Logic is, at base, the study of reasoning. Survival of nearly any
> society requires some level of reasoning, however minimal. The point of
> studying logic, I should hope, is to refine our ability to reason. Most
> people can, at least occasionally, smell the bullshit in a fallacy even
> as they gloss over the fallacies in their own thought. The best
> expression of this is (supposedly) inscribed on the monument to Freud in
> Vienna: the voice of reason is faint, but persistent.
So the effective hierarchy is: "primitive" reasoning to the more formal, rigorous logic of the philosophy professor. Why do you assume that reasoning has to be put on a single continuum like this? Couldn't different modes of thinking be adaptive in different social contexts? For instance, in what social contexts is it a useful skill to identify and avoid logical fallacies?
The assumption people seem to be making here is that effective thinking requires the formal reasoning that is learned in (mostly) academic settings. This is simply not true. Sternberg's research on practical intelligence is useful here: practical problem solving skills are more or less orthogonal with formal logical reasoning skills, as measured by IQ tests. In various domains--comparison shopping, stocktrading, pilot training--practical problem solving ability is not effectively predicted by formal reasoning skills.
I want to stress I'm no pomo ranting about the logocentrism of reason; I teach research methods in social science, so I have great respect for formal logical reasoning. However, I think it's dangerous to treat this mode of thought as the ideal against which all modes of thought should be compared.
Miles