@dimosthenis9

Academic logic is not the same as intelligence.

Nor does being good at logic make you a decent person.

People are driven by desire and emotion not logic.

It's a great myth that people use logic to conduct themselves.

And its a great myth that academic logic is some kind of cure for everything.

People are shaped by their genes and environment. Even the smartest people have to fight against their prejudices.

I don't see it as a myth at all. Logic isn't the cure for everything but for sure is what can lead people in happier lives. I agree that people are driven by their desires but Logic can play a huge role as someone to realize what are these desires indeed and which of them truly he needs to fulfill and what others are social made desires for example.
I see Logic as the only reason someone has on his life. And how he can affect it. Using Logic to react in all circumstances for a better life. It's his only tool as to rule over his life. The other aspects he can't control as genes, social conditions he was born, family etc. But Logic is the only way to react in all these endless circumstances as to have a happier life. Logic for me is human's strongest weapon and not a myth at all.

So you think it is mostly a genetic matter?

@dimosthenis9

So by logic you are meaning what?
Aristotle, platos dialectics or just intelligence?

Because everybody uses intelligence in their life.

Intelligence is not academic logic.

Logic is just tools for checking if the sentences are consistent without contradictions and fallacies in the arguments or propositions.

There are different types of Logics, and one which is mostly practical is based on just one simple law.
If the premise is wrong, then subsequent arguments and the conclusion will be wrong.

So always check the premise for its logical consistency, and take it from there.

There are other types of Logics such as Modal Logic (really for those who are interested in Maths or Computer Programming and A.I.), and Informal Logic or Critical Logic (used in the Courts by the judges and solicitors during the trials).

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa.

There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie.

In most cases and the rule of thumb is, when reading a sentence, if it does not make sense, then it is not your fault, but more likely it is written badly or inconsistently.

I am closer to Aristotle's definition for Logic though I don't agree fully.
For me Logic is mostly the ability that humans are gifted to use their minds to reach Truth. In every matter of their lives. Logic is the point that you reach after using mind and this point is Truth (at least closer to Truth, cause what actually truth is, is a different discussion). When you use pure Logic, you come to a point that there is no argument that can stand against it. So for me that is what I consider Logic. Like humans "searching truth engine" . If I can put it this way.
But my question is if that engine's work is cause of Intelligence or something else?

@dimosthenis9

The "engines work" is the expression of intelligence.

But not everybody thinks in an aristelian way.

Plus there is intuition,which is an immediate non discursive awareness or thought.

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. — Corvus

But if for example I have a desire to kill let's say. Can't Logic affect my acts at the end?? Can't I use Logic to realize that this psychological desire is purely wrong and it will make my life also miserable?? I still believe that Logic is a way as to tame our psychological desires and filter them as to act in our own benefit at the end! Our desires aren't always in favor of our happiness but Logic for sure is.
By the way interesting what you mentioned about Modal logic. Never heard it.

But if for example I have a desire to kill let's say. Can't Logic affect my acts at the end?? Can't I use Logic to realize that this psychological desire is purely wrong and it will make my life also miserable?? I still believe that Logic is a way as to tame our psychological desires and filter them as to act in our own benefit at the end! Our desires aren't always in favor of our happiness but Logic for sure is.
By the way interesting what you mentioned about Modal logic. Never heard it. — dimosthenis9

When you say "I have a desire to kill.", it is not a logical conclusion, but a desire, which is a psychological state. Maybe logical thinking has provided the information, which triggered the desire to kill. But the books say that Logic's duty ends there, i.e. providing the information. With the information, you could also have had a desire to leave, desire to go to a pub, or felt nothing. Anything could have been the case. The kind of desire triggered, or nothing would depend on the individual's state of mind and the circumstances, not the logical conclusion.

I am not too familiar with Modal Logic, and under the impression, it is for Mathematicians, Computer Programmers and A.I Engineers. But I am sure, the origin of ML is Philosophy, and it is also a field of academic Philosophy.

racism is a matter totally out of Logic. — dimosthenis9

I'm gonna stick my neck out and disagree with this statement. Logic is, as you said, a "searching truth engine" - it's designed to take truths as inputs and spit out another truth that simply can't be false (deductive logic) or is most likely true (inductive logic). It, however, can't tell the difference between a truth and a falsehood - that's our job so to speak. If the inputs into the searching truth engine" is dubious, the truth of the output is not guaranteed, nevertheless one is being logical. When it comes to racists, the inputs are questionable "truths" i.e. they could be false. After that all bets are off - what the "searching truth engine" presents as an output could be true, could be false - we can't tell for sure.

Let's take an example of a valid argument form in logic

Modus Ponens
1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo,
3. q

A truth table for the above argument form
p..........q..........if p then q
T..........T.......... T
T..........F..........F
F..........T..........T
F..........F..........T

As you can see, there's no line in the truth table where all the premises are true and the conclusion false. This is one particular type of "searching truth engine". There are many others.

More to the point, notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. This, my best hunch, is what's happening with racism. A racist uses a valid argument form but faer premises are of doubtful authenticity. In other words, racists are assuredly logical but they've screwed up premise-wise.

As for logic vs intelligence, think computer vs human. Logic is part of intelligence, possibly system-critical vis-à-vis intelligence but intelligence is so much more than just logic.

So you think it is mostly a genetic matter? — dimosthenis9

There is debate on whether we are primarily shaped by our genes, or our environment. I am tempted to say genes, but I haven't given it serious thought.

In any event, even our environment can motivate us more than our logic. For example if someone's born and bred in the middle east, their environment has likely led to them being a Muslim, and someone born and bred in India, their environment has likely led to them being Hindu. Not to say these religious beliefs are wrong, just that people's environment has taken precedence over their logic in developing their beliefs.

notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. — TheMadFool

Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent.

But my question is if that engine's work is cause of Intelligence or something else? — dimosthenis9

How would that determination be possible, if the very thing asked about requires the use of it?

The bane of epistemological metaphysics since Day One, not that it isn’t a worthwhile query despite having no irreducible...apodeitically certain..... answer.

Good post.

I see as one of the greatest problems that people (both in general as society but as individuals also)find extremely difficult to think Logically. I don't mean about beliefs or whatever but I mean in pure logic terms for their own personal benefit. For example racism is a matter totally out of Logic. In any terms there is no racist argument that can stand against Logic simply! But millions of people think like that. And I can mention hundreds other examples of out of logic thinking! — dimosthenis9

Very few of the decisions you make, the actions you take, the attitudes and beliefs you hold are mediated by logic. They're not necessarily illogical, more likely non-logical. Most of what we know we don't know in the sense that we can justify it logically. The world we inhabit mentally is one that we have built up starting and infancy. Much of it is non-verbal and non-conscious. Logic is the gold paint on the ball at the top of the flagpole. That metaphor is not logical.

Logic isn't the cure for everything but for sure is what can lead people in happier lives. — dimosthenis9

And yet, here you have a philosophy forum full of unhappy people.

I see Logic as the only reason someone has on his life. And how he can affect it. Using Logic to react in all circumstances for a better life. It's his only tool as to rule over his life. — dimosthenis9

Billions of people lead happy lives without depending on logic. Logic can't lead you anywhere, it can only, sometimes, maybe, slow you down or stop you, change direction a bit. The will to act, intention, comes from somewhere else.

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa. — Corvus

I agree with this.

There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie. — Corvus

There are plenty of examples here on the forum.

Good post.

Hey.
I had to make an account just to comment on this post.
And then not be able to because i spelt my email Id wrong, and spend 10 mins trying to figure it out.
But finally I am here.

I am surprised that I happened to stumble upon this post as i made a pretty similar post in reddit today.
Well, not really, but some elements of this post vibe with the elements of my post.
Unfortunately, it got removed as according the rules, I wasn't supposed to post discussions there. (oopsie)
Since, its been removed there, i guess i will post it here and hope people give more info on it.
Btw, I like OP's way of thinking so i hope they comment on my post.

Anyways,
I would like to talk to the OP directly, or just have this post be lively and get more input.
Here's my input about your question:-
I don't think logic is a matter of intelligence.
I think logic is just a tool to find the solution to a problem.
And intelligence is a way to measure someone's ability to use such tools.

Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent. — Corvus

Yes, I've been told that but I never got around to exploring those areas - I find them too unnerving not to mention complicated for the likes of me. I maintain a safe distance my policy being I'll cross the bridge when I get to it. Until then stay in familiar territory as far as possible.

By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"?

I can think of one. Take the word "but" which is equivalent to "and" in logic, both being translated as the logical connective AND (&). If I say, "John stayed but Jane left" what I wish to convey is there's some kind of tension, a logical one as in an inconsistency (Jane should've stayed) but this is lost in translation so to speak and the aforementioned statement is treated as identical to "John stayed and Jane left". That's about all I have on this issue with logic.

Here is the link to my post:- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11369/are-emotions-unnecessary-now

I am really sorry if this feels like i am trying to get audience towards my post i some way.
I just want the OP to make a comment on my post, and I cant DM them unless they follow me back.

don't think logic is a matter of intelligence.
I think logic is just a tool to find the solution to a problem.
And intelligence is a way to measure someone's ability to use such tools. — Kinglord1090

It's not that I disagree but logic isn't only about finding solutions in problems but I see it more as adapting a general set of mind that helps you react in any life circumstances you get in. Like using it always to find the best path for you and at all matters to get as close as you can to the truth.

We talk about intelligence. So what about people with low iq? Are they condemned not to be able to act Logically? I don't think so. I have met people with low iq in my life but exactly cause they realize that they weren't the smartest people on earth and knew their abilities they really act with very logical way in most cases at least

Being subject to an appeal to logic is a matter of intelligence. It denotes the ability to see through emotional appeals that are meant to manipulate people.

And yet, here you have a philosophy forum full of unhappy people. — T Clark

How could you know that?

Billions of people lead happy lives without depending on logic. Logic can't lead you anywhere, it can only, sometimes, maybe, slow you down or stop you, change direction a bit. The will to act, intention, comes from somewhere else — T Clark

Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? So what? Our life decisions are already given to us and we can't do anything about that?And what is that "somewhere else" that they come from at the end?? I disagree. Logic is not only about slowing you down and just postpone your decisions. It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. Not that it can't happen but it's like winning by luck.I think Logic is a main requirement for happiness.
If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it.

Very few of the decisions you make, the actions you take, the attitudes and beliefs you hold are mediated by logic. They're not necessarily illogical, more likely non-logical. Most of what we know we don't know in the sense that we can justify it logically. — T Clark

I agree that decisions we make aren't mediated by logic. But that's exactly my point. That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it.

Well, i can't really talk against your claim, but in my experience, the people with lower IQs i have seen generally tend to not use logic.
Also, just IQ isn't a good way to determine someone's intelligence, there is also EQ and other stuff.

@Kinglord1090

You believe in EQ yet want to eliminate emotions?

By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"? — TheMadFool

Yeah, I picked it up somewhere, but cannot recall where. Anyhow ...

Another example would be,
If S and T, then CG.

If it is sunny and I have time, then
I will cut the grass.

But for S condition, what if it was partly sunny and
there was some rain too, and then sunny again?

And for T condition, what if I had time, but only for 15 minutes?

For CG, what if I did manage to cut the grass, but only 1/2 of the lawn due to lack of time?

And for all that, what if I cut the next door neighbour's lawn instead of mine, because we just moved into the house, and didn't know the garden was shared by 4 other households?
S -> T then CG can look like a perfectly true statement, but in real life situations, it turns out not to be a very meaningful statement at all.

The truth table is great for simple mathematical workouts, but is not very practical for the real life applications due to its limitations in linguistic capabilities and also complicated situations arising from the real life representations.

I think that to make good argument, it must start from clear and logically valid premise, and all the following each propositions must be also valid and true, to arrive to the true conclusion. And then this argument will have higher chance of acceptance by the other party. And really only good valid logical arguments prepared with full linguistic logic can achieve that.

If there is any problems with either the premise or supporting propositions, then even if the conclusion is true, the whole argument will be looked upon bad argument or inconsistent one, and will be rejected by the other party. In legal court, the arguments like that will be thrown out, and the case will be lost.

I don't think you're on the right track here. The conditional example you provided don't seem to have anything to do with language itself; it's more about the contingencies of what the individual atomic propositions describes. Language-related issues with logic have to be about the nuances and subtleties of logical words like "and", "or, "if...then..." Sorry, try again!

Logic, it seems to me, is a formal-symbolic tool crafted by and for intelligence the exercise of which is matter of cultivation (of aptitute) and habit (competence). Intelligence – adaptive optimization of error-correcting problem-solving – is a species function / defect expressed (embodied-enacted) to varying degrees in individuals via ecological affordances.

Logic is just tools for checking if the sentences are consistent without contradictions and fallacies in the arguments or propositions.

If the premise is wrong, then subsequent arguments and the conclusion will be wrong. — Corvus

:up:

Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work.