Ok, but why?
I got into what I thought was a long discussion (turned out to just be a long talk) with a friend of mine who felt studying logic was pointless; it's better just to think things through. Her argument was simply that she's used logic all her life and the introductory logic course she took didn't help her at all. Well, I concede that introductory logic courses are quite redundant.
But, to elaborate on my initial response, in "thinking things through" we are appealing to the underlying logical structure of the situation. What if I say that "if the dice come up doubles(D), I get to roll again(R) and, look, the dice came up doubles, therefore I get to roll again"? In trying to determine if it's true I get to roll again, you may think to yourself that I've satisfied the antecedent (I rolled doubles), and that, by recalling what the rules of the game, I know the conditional is true, therefore the conclusion that I get to roll again must be true. Now, whether I'm thinking through the previous statement, or the formal form of D --> R, D, therefore R, I'm analyzing the same structure.
The following response was that dealing with letters doesn't help one in real life. Well, again, I concede that thinking in letters at the introductory level doesn't help many people. This is because many people are already competent at some elementary level of logical deduction. We deal with letters because we're too lazy to write out the actual statements again and again (and, admittedly, it's easier to see relationships when things are simplified symbolically). But that's not to say the study of logic past the introductory level isn't useful.
Consider the analogy of studying English. In middle school, the classes on grammar and punctuation weren't all that illuminating. We used the English language to a higher level outside of class than we did underlining the adjectives and circling the adverbs in class. This is the same with introductory courses in logic. But if we happened to take an English course in college, whether an in-depth look at Shakespeare or a comprehensive study of poetry, we're actually studying the English language to a higher level than the slang and lifeless expressions we tend to use in everyday conversations. However, by studying the theory of a metaphor or the more complex means of stucturing a sentence, we can then utilize these tools outside the ivory tower. We needn't, necessarily, but if we wanted to be more eloquent or more precise in our description of things, we could do so.
Well, the same goes for logic. We naturally acquire a sufficient level of logical understanding through our everyday encounters. And though introductory courses don't add to this understanding, by studying logic that exceeds our everyday requirements, we can be more proficient and effective in our everyday deductions. Mind you, we needn't use these new tools; afterall, we've gotten through life fairly well with our limited understanding thus far. But through the study of logic, we at least able to better argue our position, make more elaborate extractions from a set of conceded points, find the weak points in arguments and follow through by showing their fallacies. And though I talk about this in an opponent-based confrontation, this applies to all types of logical situations; arguments with oneself, mass-media statements, and taking a set of known facts and developing new solutions to a problem. So while I agree whole-heartedly that studying logic for the sake of studying logic is quite pointless, this brings me to my last point.
In the English example, it was argued that the higher level of comprehension is really only useful if you wanted to write or be an editor. Well, I agree that these occupations provide abundant opportunities to utilize the understanding gained through your coursework, but I also contend opportunities exist outside specialized employment. The next argument was that maybe it'd be more useful to learn about things with a larger scope of applicability than English. And this is the best answer I can give to why I love philosophy so much. Philosophy is often times seen as dealing only with the abstract, higher order nature of things. Well, true. But from this higher order, the conceptual understanding and tools gained through study filter down to all aspects of life. In philosophy, we take an understanding of political theory at their most abstract and apply it to current diplomatic situations. We take an understanding of the purpose of science and approach artifacts in our environment that have never been tested against the scientific method (this is how all the major scientific disciplines developed, included the most recent offspring of psychology). And, though this involves a bit more theory than necessary to make my point, philosophy itself has a hierarchy. Epistemologists would say the study of knowledge was the mother of all philosophy. But, like any great mythological genealogy, the study of knowledge was beget by the great, all-pervasive structure of wisdom as a whole; logic. For, without logic, we could not deduce any truths or even argue coherently for the existence of knowledge, ethics, metaphysics, etc. So this is why I consider the study of logic not only useful, but necessary for any personal development in our attempt to understand the world around us.
Post Scripts...
But, to elaborate on my initial response, in "thinking things through" we are appealing to the underlying logical structure of the situation. What if I say that "if the dice come up doubles(D), I get to roll again(R) and, look, the dice came up doubles, therefore I get to roll again"? In trying to determine if it's true I get to roll again, you may think to yourself that I've satisfied the antecedent (I rolled doubles), and that, by recalling what the rules of the game, I know the conditional is true, therefore the conclusion that I get to roll again must be true. Now, whether I'm thinking through the previous statement, or the formal form of D --> R, D, therefore R, I'm analyzing the same structure.
The following response was that dealing with letters doesn't help one in real life. Well, again, I concede that thinking in letters at the introductory level doesn't help many people. This is because many people are already competent at some elementary level of logical deduction. We deal with letters because we're too lazy to write out the actual statements again and again (and, admittedly, it's easier to see relationships when things are simplified symbolically). But that's not to say the study of logic past the introductory level isn't useful.
Consider the analogy of studying English. In middle school, the classes on grammar and punctuation weren't all that illuminating. We used the English language to a higher level outside of class than we did underlining the adjectives and circling the adverbs in class. This is the same with introductory courses in logic. But if we happened to take an English course in college, whether an in-depth look at Shakespeare or a comprehensive study of poetry, we're actually studying the English language to a higher level than the slang and lifeless expressions we tend to use in everyday conversations. However, by studying the theory of a metaphor or the more complex means of stucturing a sentence, we can then utilize these tools outside the ivory tower. We needn't, necessarily, but if we wanted to be more eloquent or more precise in our description of things, we could do so.
Well, the same goes for logic. We naturally acquire a sufficient level of logical understanding through our everyday encounters. And though introductory courses don't add to this understanding, by studying logic that exceeds our everyday requirements, we can be more proficient and effective in our everyday deductions. Mind you, we needn't use these new tools; afterall, we've gotten through life fairly well with our limited understanding thus far. But through the study of logic, we at least able to better argue our position, make more elaborate extractions from a set of conceded points, find the weak points in arguments and follow through by showing their fallacies. And though I talk about this in an opponent-based confrontation, this applies to all types of logical situations; arguments with oneself, mass-media statements, and taking a set of known facts and developing new solutions to a problem. So while I agree whole-heartedly that studying logic for the sake of studying logic is quite pointless, this brings me to my last point.
In the English example, it was argued that the higher level of comprehension is really only useful if you wanted to write or be an editor. Well, I agree that these occupations provide abundant opportunities to utilize the understanding gained through your coursework, but I also contend opportunities exist outside specialized employment. The next argument was that maybe it'd be more useful to learn about things with a larger scope of applicability than English. And this is the best answer I can give to why I love philosophy so much. Philosophy is often times seen as dealing only with the abstract, higher order nature of things. Well, true. But from this higher order, the conceptual understanding and tools gained through study filter down to all aspects of life. In philosophy, we take an understanding of political theory at their most abstract and apply it to current diplomatic situations. We take an understanding of the purpose of science and approach artifacts in our environment that have never been tested against the scientific method (this is how all the major scientific disciplines developed, included the most recent offspring of psychology). And, though this involves a bit more theory than necessary to make my point, philosophy itself has a hierarchy. Epistemologists would say the study of knowledge was the mother of all philosophy. But, like any great mythological genealogy, the study of knowledge was beget by the great, all-pervasive structure of wisdom as a whole; logic. For, without logic, we could not deduce any truths or even argue coherently for the existence of knowledge, ethics, metaphysics, etc. So this is why I consider the study of logic not only useful, but necessary for any personal development in our attempt to understand the world around us.
Post Scripts...
posted by J.B.P. at 12:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home