Understanding: Rationality Versus Logic

A Pragmatic Exploration of Human Thought

Rationality and Logic: Distinctions and Misunderstandings

Decades ago, I read an article that argued rationality and logic were not the same. At the time, I did not understand the reasoning, but now, if logic is taken to mean syllogistic, inductive, or formal logic, I agree with the distinction. These forms of logic are tools that we use, but they should not be equated with rationality itself. Rationality encompasses a broader spectrum of thought and decision-making that cannot be reduced to formal logical systems.

What Does 'Being Logical' Really Mean?

Assertions that someone is "being logical" are common, but the phrase often raises questions. Does being logical mean following syllogistic reasoning, employing symbolic logic, or avoiding logical fallacies? The term logic is frequently used in ways that seem imprecise or incorrect, leading to confusion about what is actually meant. Without clear definitions, these claims lack substance and clarity.

Philosophers and Syllogistic Reasoning

When reading philosophers who write clearly enough to follow, I find that their arguments rarely rely on syllogistic reasoning. While some delve into formal symbolic reasoning, this approach introduces challenges of its own, particularly in interpreting symbolic representations in terms of real-world phenomena. Ensuring that these arguments are not only valid but also sound becomes an even greater problem, which undermines their practical applicability.

How Arguments Are Constructed

Despite the theoretical prominence of syllogistic reasoning, it is not how most people think, communicate, or document their arguments. Laypeople and philosophers alike typically rely on other mechanisms of reasoning, which suggests that formal logic plays a limited role in everyday and intellectual discourse. These alternative methods of reasoning often go unrecognized or underappreciated in discussions about rationality and logic.

Understanding Abduction: Peirce's Perspective and Beyond

Charles Sanders Peirce introduced the concept of abduction, but I have not studied his original works in detail. Based on summaries, abduction seems to encompass everything beyond inductive and formal logical systems. While this perspective might not fully align with Peirce's views, it is defensible as a broad framework for understanding reasoning that falls outside formalized logic.

Abduction as a Tool for Reasoning

Peirce emphasized the generation of new ideas and hypotheses as central to abduction. While this is an important aspect, I argue that reasoning is broader than just hypothesis generation. Reasoning involves explaining phenomena, understanding causality, and making sense of variability for practical purposes like prediction and control. These functions are central to navigating both the physical and social worlds.

Inference to the Best Explanation

From my perspective, abduction serves as a catch-all for the reasoning processes used to understand causality, make predictions, and develop explanations. The concept of inference to the best explanation aligns with this view, emphasizing the importance of reasoning that seeks to make thoughts consistent with available evidence. However, this consistency is often limited by the evidence itself and the inherent challenges of understanding complex phenomena.

Deductive Thinking: Form and Validity

Deductive thinking is formal and mathematical, represented through tools like syllogisms, predicate calculus, Boolean algebra, and truth tables. While deductive arguments can be formally valid, this does not guarantee their soundness. The mapping between formal deductions and real-world relevance can be imprecise, highlighting a key limitation of this approach to reasoning.

Inductive Logic: Provisional and Probabilistic

Inductive logic operates as a form of reasoning based on past occurrences to predict future events. Unlike formal logic, it does not have a close resemblance to mathematical systems. Inductive reasoning is inherently provisional, relying on assumptions about the constancy of the world. Sometimes these assumptions hold with high certainty, while at other times they are subject to variability and chance.

Flaws in Deductive Logic and Syllogisms

Deductive logic and syllogistic reasoning are prone to well-documented problems, many of which have been identified over millennia. These flaws, often expressed in words or symbolic terms, used to be formally taught but are now rarely studied outside specialized disciplines like philosophy. The decline in attention to these issues reflects the diminishing role of formal logic in general education.

The Rarity of Symbolic and Formal Logic Skills

Symbolic reasoning, while mathematically rigorous, is a rare skill. Very few people understand it, and it plays a minor role in most forms of reasoning. Even syllogistic reasoning, which might be more accessible, is not a natural or common way of thinking. Although some individuals can identify logical fallacies or recognize syllogistic patterns, these abilities are not widespread.

The Limited Role of Syllogistic Reasoning in Thinking

Syllogistic and mathematical logic occupy a small niche in human thought. While they can be useful for certain tasks, they are not the primary mechanisms people use for reasoning. Instead, most thinking involves alternative processes that are less formally structured but equally important for practical decision-making.

Induction as a Commonplace Mechanism

Inductive reasoning is likely one of the most common forms of reasoning, as it involves identifying patterns that appear to work based on experience. There is even a suspicion that formal logic itself might depend on inductive principles rather than purely on logical consistency. However, this idea remains speculative and warrants further exploration.

A Multitude of Mental Tools in Reasoning

Reasoning involves a wide array of mental operations, including analogy, metaphor, sorting, counting, categorizing, abstracting, generalizing, and more. These discrete intellectual skills are rational and involve reasoning, but they are not easily organized into hierarchical systems or directed graphs. Attempts to classify them systematically have proven unworkable, reflecting their complexity and diversity.

Reasoning Beyond Logic

To label all reasoning as logic is misleading. People use a variety of mental tools and mechanisms that extend far beyond formal logic. These tools are integral to rational thought and are essential for making sense of the world. Recognizing their importance broadens our understanding of reasoning and its practical applications.

Abduction as a General Framework for Reasoning

Abduction can be seen as a framework that encompasses the diverse mental tools people use to reach conclusions based on evidence and causal understanding. However, formal deduction represents only a small fraction of this broader process. This perspective aligns with a more inclusive view of reasoning that reflects its practical and varied nature.

The Oversimplification of Thinking into Three Modes

Thinking cannot be reduced to abduction, induction, and deduction. While these categories are useful for analysis, they oversimplify the complexity of human thought. A pragmatic approach recognizes that reasoning involves a wide range of mental activities that resist simple classification.

Peirce, Pragmatism, and a Broader View of Thinking

Peirce's work on abduction provides a starting point for understanding reasoning, but it should not constrain our view of what thinking entails. A broader, more pragmatic perspective acknowledges the limitations of formal definitions and emphasizes the diverse and adaptive nature of human thought.

Critiquing Philosophical Definitions of Thinking

Philosophers, including Peirce, often define thinking in ways that narrow its scope. However, neurologists and cognitive psychologists might challenge these definitions, emphasizing that thinking is far more complex and multifaceted than traditional philosophical frameworks suggest. This critique underscores the importance of integrating insights from multiple disciplines to better understand reasoning.