2006-1-2 14:56:00
I only claim to use logic. Logic is more than common sense. It also includes uncommon sense.
Larry writes:
In the past when I have used words like "deceptive" with you I have always gotten a negative response. I think my usage is reasonable, but the word itself simply has too many negative connotations for you. If I am to communicate with you then I need to use some other word like "mislead."
Is the same thing happening when I say "common sense"? Is there something in that which just strikes you in the wrong way?
I like the term common sense as evidenced by the fact I have used it 259 times to date in the archives. I use this when appropriate and I use the word "logic" when appropriate. One does NOT substitute for another. They both have different uses and are defined differently.
Most of my teachings go beyond what the common sense of others have come up with, yet appeal to common sense. A number of things I have written have been beyond what common sense could have originated, but could have been seen by the logical mind if a person had put two and two together. The idea that God is not perfect could be obtained by a logical thinking process, but not common sense. Such an uncommon conclusion requires uncommon sense. Something like this can be logically concluded without tapping into the Oneness Principle.
An important thing to know about me is that I am very careful in the choice of my words to make sure the best possible word is chosen to most appropriately convey the idea I am presenting. If I say "common sense" that is what I mean and if I use the word "logic" that is what I mean.
Larry:
Is perhaps that part of why we are failing to communicate here? Some people do seem to use the word "common sense" with some negative connotations. However when I use the word I mean it as a compliment. Sometimes people who are supposedly very learned don't seem to have the common sense "to come in out of the rain."
No. That has absolutely nothing to do with why we are not communicating. To use the word "common sense" instead of "logic" would distort what I am saying. I like the word "common sense" and I also like the word "pizza" but only use them when appropriate.
As far as lack of communication goes I do understand you. I think the problem is that you are not understanding me because you are applying your formal definition of logic to what I write.
Larry:
Let's try this. Instead of saying "common sense" I will use "natural reasoning" instead. Just about every human being uses natural reasoning to some extent. Some barely use it, and others use it to a very remarkable degree, regardless of whether or not they have studied formal logic. In my view you fit into that latter category.
Why would you call the words of Jesus formal reasoning, but not mine when I have used the same process many times?
I will continue to use the word logic as defined in the dictionary. I do not see any reason to stop using a word as accepted by and used in the dictionaries of the world and correctly understood by most of the class.
If you are looking for a term to differentiate between how I use the word and as you do you could use "formal logic" and "informal logic." But it seems to me to be much simpler to just accept the dictionary definition I am using, which is actually the most common usage of the word.
What percentage of people, when using the word "logic" are referring to formal logic? I'd guess that it is less than 20%. I'd guess that about 80% use the term approximately the same way I do. Are you going to the majority of the people of the planet with a crusade to get them to use "common sense" when they say "logic?"
I doubt it. Then why single me out?
Larry:
Is it possible that reasoning could be classified into two broad categories? The first category would be "natural reasoning" which is essentially reasoning that has not been trained by formal methods. It is the kind of reasoning that we acquire from direct observation, experience, and seeing how others reason.
Of course, and the dictionary acknowledges this and this is why there is more than one definition for the word logic.
Larry:
In a society which respects formal education, and often associates those who have it with authority in a general sense, there is a notion that trained reasoning is always superior to natural reasoning.
I have no doubt about this. But to reveal what is true I am prepared to use my abilities at logic and reason to stand up to any person learned in any method. The soul is the ultimate measure of truth and when one defends that which is acknowledged by the soul the logic will always come together to confound those who oppose.
You have seen me do this with opposition time and time again on this list.
Larry:
So who is often truly the most superior example of reason? Is it always the person who has learned a lot of rules by rote, or is it the person who has not learned these rules, but has probed deeply into the questions of meaning and knowledge?
Good complimentary question.
Larry:
Perhaps there will come a time in the future when more advanced training in reasoning will lead to a more uniform application of reason in real life. However I think we are quite a ways from that point right now.
I think that is a good goal. I have no problem with structured logic and would like to see more young people involved in using logic by any standard. There is a famine of logic in the schools today.
Larry:
This sort of leads to one other observation on logic. In our previous discussion you observed that a juror would be illogical if they did not leave open the very slight possibility that the defendant might be innocent due to information that is not presently known. We didn't really disagree on this, but our terminology and hidden premises got in the way of seeing each other's view.
In regards to the laws of logic as presently understood, is it perhaps just as reasonable to hold open the very, very slightest possibility that the logicians have made some very, very subtle errors in the laws that they believe are absolute and irrevocable? If existence as we perceive it is largely illusionary, is it possible that some of the foundational ideas of logic are to some degree illusionary also?
It must be or all teachers of logic in school would belong to the same political party.
Seriously, any formula reduced to black and white standard never works in every situation. It always comes down to the Second Key of Judgment to make any system or structure work.
Larry:
I don't know the answer to that question. At the very foundations of understanding I believe that is an important question. The importance at this time may be more in the fact that we ask the question, than in the expectation we will find the answer.
Very true.
Larry:
This is related to why I earlier raised the issue of Pi and certain apparent difficulties in mathematics. It seems to me that mathematics reaches some conclusions that are intuitively absurd. We didn't mention it earlier, but I also wonder that perhaps some of the conclusions of quantum mechanics – to the very slight degree that I think I understand them – seem to be leading to concepts that are intuitively absurd also.
We are going on assumptions on quantum physics and mechanics and I believe that we are lacking some pieces to the puzzle.
I math I think the term "infinity" is illusionary, cannot be proven to exist and does not exist in the world of form.
Larry:
That is why I have to wonder if it is not possible for perfect reasoning to reach an absurd conclusion when that conclusion is judged by an absolute standard of truth.
I see lots of imperfect reasoning by scientists and some in math. The way to illustrate the point of my challenge though is to not talk about the idea in general or the abstract but to attempt to come up with an example that would prove it wrong. I do not think this is possible. This is why I issued the challenge.
Larry:
My intent here is entirely oriented to suggest to you how I understand and see these things.
No problem. I want to understand you correctly. On the other hand, I believe that many of our arguments occur because you do not understand me correctly because I use a different definition of a word than you do. I will always be happy to elaborate when this occurs and tell you exactly the meaning I am attaching to any word.
Larry:
Perhaps the next time we touch upon these sort of issues we will know beforehand a little better what each others definitions are, and what words don't work well for communication.
I hope so. We generally understand each other quite well and are on the same page in most arguments. Even on this one we are pretty much in agreement if we seek to understand what each other means by the word logic.
I have been reluctant to do this but to end with clarification I will define the logic in my own words as I mean it when I say it.
Logic: The process of step by step reasoning until a truthful conclusion is reached.
JJ's logical method:
Step One: Start right.. If you do not start with a true premise then the best logical process will produce wrong answers. Therefore, one must examine the premise. If pervious logic, experiment, experience etc has proven it true then proceed with it. If the premise has not been proven to be accurate the logical person will assess the probability of it being true and incorporate that probability in his premise. For example:
"There's less than a million to one chance I will win the lottery so..."
Step Two: Proceed using the principles of natural reasoning until the conclusion is reached. If there is no flaw in the logic or reasoning process then the conclusion will be true.
Example: The grass has been green every summer of my life; therefore, the overwhelming chances are that it will be green this summer.
Step Three: Examine the conclusion. The conclusion, though true may or may not be useful in application.
Sample conclusion: I have a 50/50 chance of taking the right road here.
Even though the conclusion is true, it is not helpful in making a decision. A dog has just as good of a chance of taking the right road.
Sample Conclusion: To travel by air is safer than traveling by car.
This is helpful to those who are nervous about flying.
Sample Conclusion: There's over a 70% chance my team will win.
This is helpful if he enjoys betting. He may still lose the bet but if he keeps betting with the odds in his favor he will win more than he will lose.
Hope this helps.
If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees. Kahlil Gibran (1883 - 1931)
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved