> So the effective hierarchy is: "primitive" reasoning to the more
> formal, rigorous logic of the philosophy professor.
I wouldn't say it's the logic of the university professor-- especially since so many are utterly demented and worthless as examples.
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?
Well, I didn't assert anything like this; humans did get along, and continue to get along, without using the most formally logical analyses. But it does _help_ to be more careful in one's reasoning-- to follow rules of inquiry, to weigh evidence carefully, and to remember that one's conclusions are provisional.
> 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.
Personally, I think it's sad that reasoning is taught in academic settings. Ought to be more of an ongoing, everyday sort of thing.