A logic question for the board?

Question

It is logical to assume that someone cannot think logically if they do not express their proof in symbolic logic?



Or is that an irrelevancy to the real issue of logic and just a game?

Answer 1

No, it is not.

Many people can correctly answer logic questions (like the Wason Card Selection task) when the logical elements represent real-world things ("All people who ate the chicken got food poisoning...") but not when they are merely symbols ("All cards with a vowel on one side have an even number on the other..."). Those people's answers do correctly "track" logic even though the addition of the symbolism trips them up.

I do find it remarkable that so many people cannot handle symbolic logic at all, and I certainly don't think that it's just a "game", as the use of symbolism in logic is what makes logical argument generalizable.

About 12 years ago I taught a summer section of what we called the "baby logic" class at a local university. There was very little symbolic logic in it, but about a third of the students (almost all of whom expected to graduate at the end of the summer) had no shot in the world of passing the class. I found that remarkable, and eye-opening.

Answer 2

I wouldn't say that it's an irrelevancy to the real issue of logic, but logic isn't always the most practical approach to the real world- as concretely verifiable information is rare, and decisions must be made regardless. Many people are capable of intuitive logic, which could be refined with education, and I'd say it's unfair to claim them incapable simply because of a lack of established evidence. To state that they cannot implies a lack of ability, when perhaps they are only awaiting the proper opportunity.

Answer 3

Someone may be completely logical in their thought without having any education in the formality of symbolic logic. Of course, the inability to grasp the symbolic usage once shown is indicative of an actual problem; one that seems common to those with literal translations of religious metaphor. The real problem is not symbolic failure, but the inability to recognize logical fallacy. These are all over religious arguments, such as “look around, the world is evidence of God.” (fallacy of Asserting the Consequent, with other added assumptions) or, “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” (invalid shifting of the burden of proof). My favorites are the Ad Hoc arguments, such as "you can't explain this gap in Evolutionary Theory, so God must have done it." These fallacies do indicate an inability to think logically, and thus a lack of intellectual tools to think scientifically.

Answer 4

No and yes. Symbolic logic is only one system of notation to standardize arguments. There are other systems, and all are artificial. Logical argument is based on assumptions, and if the assumptions are wrong, the logic may still be valid, but the conclusion will be fallacious. Someone who does not express their proof in symbolic logic may still think logically, but if you start with the assumption that only proofs expressed symbolically are logical, then the logical conclusion is that any other proofs are illogical.

Answer 5

Lodgic as a resourse can be a good thing, too much however leads one to think that just b/c someone does not use a certain type they are not lodgical. This question begs an answer to yet another old question, How can we say there is reality? What one person thinks or believes is different from another, just as a memory may dffer for two people during the same event. Each is correct, yet they do not agree. Each knows what they think, feel, beleive, or remember is real. So in essance there is no such thing as reality. And going by symbolic lodgic this would also mean there is no such thing as lodgic. For if there is not bais universal reccognized how then can you have a lodgical thought?

Sorry I am really bored myself.

Answer 6

Not really. Since the concept of symbolic logic depends on the concept of logic and the concept of symbols for its existence, it is logical to assume that logic and symbols preceded symbolic logic.

Answer 7

You can not express proof of logic with symbolism.

"Logic is a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning."

Answer 8

It's very important to express logic with symbolism.
GFMS, chaper 3, verse 1 (the Pastafarian Guide to Propaganda) states, when trying to convert academics:

"Show the academics the pictures, graphs and diagrams, many of which appear to be scientific in nature."

Symbolic logic is used in FSM Theologebra, and is therefore very important.

RAmen.

Answer 9

Does one have to be trained formally in logic in order to have logic? Or, is it just another formatting style? You still come out with the same answer regardless of how you format your argument.

I think it's useless as few understand = let alone actually speak that way in an informal place like answers.

Answer 10

If all who can use symbolic logic can think logically and if some who can think logically can use symbolic logic and if all who cannot think logically cannot use symbolic logic, then some can think logically without symbolic logic but none cane use symbolic logic without logical thought.