Have you noticed that some people don't know what "logical" means?

[Jake]

I've noticed that some people don't seem to understand what it is to be a logical person. For example, I had a friend who told me I was a very logical person. We were talking about the MBTI and she was describing me as an obvious Rational. But she herself is not a rational at all. She tries to convince me of the existence of ghosts, God, etc. based on vague anecdotes that she's heard from other people. But she calls me a logical person because I don't accept ideas like these that don't have evidence behind them. She doesn't admit that I'm right when we argue, but she still refers to me as "logical".

Have you encountered people who use the term "logical" to describe a certain type of behavior without really understanding what "logical" means? It's like these people think that "logical" people are not necessarily right about things, they just all conform to a certain "logical" belief system that dismisses ghosts, God, fairies, unicorns, etc. They don't realize that logical people are justified in their beliefs. They just think that logical people have certain types of beliefs, justified or unjustified.

Another example is when Sherri Shepherd from The View said "you have to suspend a lot of logic in believing in God" but then went on to talk about how important it is to believe in God and have faith. She openly admits that belief in God is illogical, but it's like she doesn't understand what that actually means. People talk about logic as if it's just a certain type of behavior, rather than something valid that they have to pay attention to.

In fact, I think this trend extends beyond misunderstanding of the word "logic". People often use "faith" in a similarly nebulous fashion. Many people just don't seem to know what words actually mean and they throw around terms such as "logic" or "faith" without ever defining the words or using them as if they understand what they mean. It's very troubling.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Thomas Aquinas.
Logical person.

 

[peoplesuck]

I prefer to avoid people like that.

 

[Etheri]

A logical person can neither deny nor confirm the existence of ghosts, as there is no way to prove* either.

*prove in the logical sense.

It's like these people think that "logical" people are not necessarily right about things, they just all conform to a certain "logical" belief system that dismisses ghosts, God, fairies, unicorns, etc. They don't realize that logical people are justified in their beliefs.

Isn't this true, from their perspective? The way you describe it : They understand your beliefs, but they don't necessarily agree with them. Seems like a fair opinion to me.

 

[deadpixel]

I know tons of xxFx types that dont even know that logic exists.

 

[Jake]

A logical person can neither deny nor confirm the existence of ghosts, as there is no way to prove* either.

*prove in the logical sense.

Obviously I don't claim that ghosts don't exist. But every ghost-related claim I've heard so far has been ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I dismiss the individual claims, not the actual existence of ghosts. If I ever see convincing evidence, I'll believe in ghosts.

It's like these people think that "logical" people are not necessarily right about things, they just all conform to a certain "logical" belief system that dismisses ghosts, God, fairies, unicorns, etc. They don't realize that logical people are justified in their beliefs.

Isn't this true, from their perspective? The way you describe it : They understand your beliefs, but they don't necessarily agree with them. Seems like a fair opinion to me.

The point is that they describe the people who hold these specific beliefs as "logical people", as if "logical" is just a label we give to people who don't believe in ghosts, God, fairies, etc. They ignore the actual definition of "logical". By calling these people logical people, they are admitting that these people are probably justified in their beliefs. But people like my friend don't agree with logical people on almost anything, and yet they still use the label "logical" to describe the people with whom they disagree. From my friend's point of view, she should be the logical one. And yet she calls me the logical one even though she doesn't agree with me on many things.

 

[Steven]

What she means by "logical people" are those who derive their beliefs strictly from empirical evidence. My father is the same way. While he is a Catholic, he refers to atheists as "extremely logical people".

They readily acknowledge that their beliefs are not based solely on evidence. They use "faith" to make logical leaps (leaps of faith) that a truly logical person would or could not make without sufficient evidence.
They know that it's not logical to do this, but that is the whole point! They have been taught that true "faith" requires a lack of proof (logical or otherwise) to qualify as "faith". Therefore, they readily avoid it when coming to conclusions.

To them, calling you a "logical person" is an insult. It means you are incapable of having true faith, and becoming a real believer.

 

[Cherry Cola]

A logical person is someone you agree with and vice versa, that much I've gathered from my time at intpforum.com

 

[Aerl]

I believe we don't know everything about what there is, as such I have
faith that existence of ghosts and supernatural is true because that
could become a new field of research. That's the drawback of intelligent
people, we just can't dismiss even the most "stupid" things, we must
analize them in all possible ways we know and even then, we are not
perfectly sure if we are right. To an average observer we might appear
as lunatics because of it.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Just one thing to notice:
Two people can use the same logical operations to reach at totally opposite conclusions.
Does that make one less logical than the other?
Of course not.

 

[Jake]

I believe we don't know everything about what there is, as such I have
faith that existence of ghosts and supernatural is true because that
could become a new field of research. That's the drawback of intelligent
people, we just can't dismiss even the most "stupid" things, we must
analize them in all possible ways we know and even then, we are not
perfectly sure if we are right. To an average observer we might appear
as lunatics because of it.

Wait, why do you have faith in the existence of ghosts? Assuming you are using faith to mean belief without evidence, do you just have faith in the existence of literally anything that you don't have evidence for? Do you believe in fairies? Why don't you simply admit that you don't know if ghosts are real? The default position is to not believe in ghosts until you see convincing evidence.

Just one thing to notice:
Two people can use the same logical operations to reach at totally opposite conclusions.
Does that make one less logical than the other?
Of course not.

This is only true if they start with different information pertaining to the conclusion. If one knows something important that the other doesn't, they could start with different premises and therefore reach different conclusions. But if they both start with the exact same premises and they reach different conclusions, then at least one of them has an error in his or her logic.

 

[Base groove]

The obstacle can look a bit like this:

One person talks about something they 'like' or find interesting.

The other person coolly dismisses it on very practical or logical grounds.

The original person is hurt that they were dismissed so harshly.


Alternatively,

Arguing that somebody is wrong about something is equivalent to arguing they are generally wrong about everything, or a dumb person.

 

[Latte]

A logical person is someone you agree with and vice versa, that much I've gathered from my time at intpforum.com

I AGREE.

WE ARE LOGICAL

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

This is only true if they start with different information pertaining to the conclusion. If one knows something important that the other doesn't, they could start with different premises and therefore reach different conclusions. But if they both start with the exact same premises and they reach different conclusions, then at least one of them has an error in his or her logic.

But is it really possible for two people to have an exact copy of all the information in their minds?

 

[Pizzabeak]

Some people probably don't know what a lot of things are but they like to be vaguely associated with them for the appeal. Every one likes sarcasm nowadays so they go so far to express such, even claiming to be fluent in it on facebook or wearing a t-shirt with the motto. Catch is they might not even be that good at it or it seems forced. I think most of them could be sensors of some sort who are just obsessed with that, doesn't seem like anyone who was adept would openly brag about it like that, could be wrong though. So someone can romanticize something and refer to it as much as possible so as to allow any additional parties to witness the application and in essence make them feel as if they're paying dues of some sort.

 

[StevenM]

I'd say being logical is the ability to achieve solutions or decisions based on trends, facts, and impersonal judgements.

 

[Jake]

But is it really possible for two people to have an exact copy of all the information in their minds?

Of course it's not possible for two people to have exactly the same information. Then they would be the same person. But it IS possible for two people to both have the same information about a specific topic. For example:

Alice and Bob both know that all mammals have hair, and that all humans are mammals. They both use logic to come to the conclusion that all humans have hair.

They both started with the same premises, and both arrived at the same conclusion. If Bob had arrived at the conclusion "not all humans have hair", then he would have made an error in logic. We don't simply assume "Bob must have had some hidden information that led him to a different conclusion." There's no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt like that.

If two people start with the same premises and they voice those premises so that we all know what information they have about a subject, and they still reach different conclusions, then at least one of them must have made an error in logic. It's as simple as that.

So back to my original point: my friend will present her "evidence" for ghosts, which usually amounts to "I knew someone who said their house was haunted and she wouldn't lie to me". I will point out that this person could have been mistaken and we don't know if she was lying, incorrect, or perhaps actually correct about the haunting. My friend will disagree with me and return to her false dichotomy of "she was either lying, or she was right and ghosts exist, and I don't believe she was lying". She'll use logical fallacies like these and she'll ignore my logical counterarguments, but then later she'll talk about how I'm a logical person. And yet she rarely agrees with me on anything. So it seems like she should think that she is a logical person and that I am illogical. If we're both starting with the same information about ghosts, and we reach different conclusions, then we can't both be using logic. One of us has to have made an error. So why does she continue to describe me as "logical" when she almost never agrees with my arguments?

That's why I suspect that she uses "logical" to refer to a certain type of person, someone who doesn't believe in ghosts, gods, fairies, etc. without realizing that logical people are usually justified in their positions (not that they can't make mistakes). "Logical people" are to her just another group of people, like Mexican people or gay people or taxi drivers. She forgets that "logical" actually has a specific definition and that you can't disagree with "logic" and still be correct.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Another example is when Sherri Shepherd from The View said

why the fuck were you watching The View?

 

[Jake]

why the fuck were you watching The View?

Because Bill Maher went on there to promote Religulous.

 

[Kuu]

There's a mixup in this thread (and people's heads) between empirical and logical. One can believe in all sorts of stuff, in a logically consistent framework that nevertheless is unrelated to reality, resting on premises that are never verified, merely assumed to be true.

The development of human knowledge improved greatly when "natural philosophy" mostly theoretical musings were dethroned in favor of empiricism. They used to think you could solve everything without experiments...

 

[Jake]

There's a mixup in this thread (and people's heads) between empirical and logical. One can believe in all sorts of stuff, in a logically consistent framework that nevertheless is unrelated to reality, resting on premises that are never verified, merely assumed to be true.

The development of human knowledge improved greatly when "natural philosophy" mostly theoretical musings were dethroned in favor of empiricism. They used to think you could solve everything without experiments...

I'm not really talking about empiricism, I'm talking about logic.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

Definition of logic from Merriam Webster.com

log·ic

noun \ˈlä-jik\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; } : a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning



javascript:void(0);







Full Definition of LOGIC

1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2
: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
— lo·gi·cian \lō-ˈji-shən\ noun

.learners-link div.learners-link-content { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 22px; } .learners-link div.learners-link-content a .word { text-decoration: none; } .learners-link div.learners-link-content a:hover .word { color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline; } #content .definition div.d .learners-link a, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:hover, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:link, #content .definition div.d .learners-link a:visited { color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; } See logic defined for English-language learners »

.wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0 5px 0 0; } .wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a .word { text-decoration: none; } .wcentral-link div.wcentral-link-content a:hover .word { color: #5358a9; text-decoration: underline; } #content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a, #content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:hover, #content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:link, #content .definition div.d .wcentral-link a:visited { color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-variant: normal; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; } See logic defined for kids »

.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden { display: none; } li.more-sent-link { background: none; } #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link, #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link { color: #717274; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; } #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text, #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text { text-decoration: underline; } .example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link, .example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link { display: none; } #content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon { padding-right: 2px; } Examples of LOGIC

1. If you just use a little logic, you'll see I'm right.
2. There's no logic in your reasoning.
3. There's some logic to what he says.
4. There's a certain logic in what he says.
5. The revolution proceeded according to its own logic.
6. the logic of the situation

Origin of LOGIC

Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend First Known Use: 12th century


Related to LOGIC

Synonyms intellection, ratiocination, reason, reasoning, sense Related Words cogency, coherence, logicality, logicalness, rationality, rationalness; convincingness, persuasiveness; syllogism, synthesis; analysis, dissection; deduction, induction; argumentation, disputation Near Antonyms illogic, incoherence; absurdity, brainlessness, insanity, irrationality, nonsensicalness, preposterousness, senselessness
more




Other Logic Terms

a posteriori, connotation, corollary, inference, mutually exclusive, paradox, postulate, syllogism


logic

noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Study of inference and argument. Inferences are rule-governed steps from one or more propositions, known as premises, to another proposition, called the conclusion. A deductive inference is one that is intended to be valid, where a valid inference is one in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true (see deduction; validity). All other inferences are called inductive (see induction). In a narrow sense, logic is the study of deductive inferences. In a still narrower sense, it is the study of inferences that depend on concepts that are expressed by the “logical constants,” including: (1) propositional connectives such as “not,” (symbolized as ¬), “and” (symbolized as ), “or” (symbolized as ), and “if-then” (symbolized as ), (2) the existential and universal quantifiers, “(x)” and “(x),” often rendered in English as “There is an x such that …” and “For any (all) x, …,” respectively, (3) the concept of identity (expressed by “=”), and (4) some notion of predication. The study of the logical constants in (1) alone is known as the propositional calculus; the study of (1) through (4) is called first-order predicate calculus with identity. The logical form of a proposition is the entity obtained by replacing all nonlogical concepts in the proposition by variables. The study of the relations between such uninterpreted formulas is called formal logic. See also deontic logic; modal logic.

 

[Steven]

Some people probably don't know what a lot of things are but they like to be vaguely associated with them for the appeal. Every one likes sarcasm nowadays so they go so far to express such, even claiming to be fluent in it on facebook or wearing a t-shirt with the motto.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they were being sarcastic?

 

[Aerl]

Wait, why do you have faith in the existence of ghosts? Assuming you are using faith to mean belief without evidence, do you just have faith in the existence of literally anything that you don't have evidence for? Do you believe in fairies? Why don't you simply admit that you don't know if ghosts are real? The default position is to not believe in ghosts until you see convincing evidence.

In a sense it's similar to: There is a possibilitie that a meteor might hit earth,
as such, scientists hope to find information about space stored in it like a time
capsule. Thus I have faith that discovery could be made through analysis of a
meteor.

Didin't want to sound religios, it was just a way I was mocking myself in how I
can't dismiss anything before thinking about it carefully, I may have used wrong
words to express myself correctly too.

So while we don't have people shouting I met a fairy, we do have some
reporting experienced something what they can't explain, ghosts for example,
only the definition of ghosts here is relative because I might define them as a
collection of perfectly scientifically explainable occurences which might have
some interesting counterparts, like ball lightnings.

I can prove the existence of Elves, Sprites and Jets though.

Also, I can prove Fairies to exist as a myth, same goes for Santa.
So in a sense they are real... I'm not sure if there is anything not real though,
depending on our perception.

edit: Even if I admit that I don't know if ghosts exist like you said, I'm still
more likely to think that if they would have been real it could have lead to
something interesting being discovered. Or
in more common terms, I'm using faith in improper way to express excitement.

i.e.

a.I have faith in the belief that speculation that earth is flat was one of the reason we were able to make some discoveries.

b. I am amused by the thought that the reason we were able to make
some discoveries was because of speculations that earth is flat.

It's coming up with a proper answer from a wrong kind of calculation:

2+2=4 I don't know what "+" means but I know a miracle is happening
here and that associates to me with a cross, as such, the answer to this
equation is 4, because cross has some ridiculous meaning to me and I
associate it with 4.

edit2: If I am to define logic in short terms:
"A particular way of thinking about something".
Props to Wrestler Girl 97

p.s. I guess I sound more like a crazy person rather than someone reasonable. You can describe almost anything as logical once you see it's working pattern and how it's parts interact.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

it all depends on what your definition of 'means' is.

 

[Happy]

Definition of logic from Merriam Webster.com

log·ic

noun \ˈlä-jik\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; }

I agree

 

[TBerg]

Everyone believes a a certain number of impossible things just to get through every day. But I sympathize with your frustration with people for whom logic is mostly a rhetorical toy. Then again, is all logic a form of deluded rhetoric?

Logic sure is helpful in refining the truth, though.

 

[Duxwing]

Argh! I completely agree. My ESFP College Writing teacher has inconsistent epistemological skepticism, simultaneously believing in 'auras' and immeasurable qualia and considering science "one perspective" because it contains assumptions.

-Duxwing

 

[Grayman]

considering science "one perspective" because it contains assumptions.

-Duxwing

It shouldn't have assumptions by definition but having multiple perspectives is true. If theories were objective truth they would not have to redefine them or consider new theories. Physics and math may be objective. When considering real world data and when we try to interpret the results based on limited evidence we can adopt false perceptions.

 

[Grayman]

Logic sure is helpful in refining the truth, though.

Perhaps within reason.

 

[Duxwing]

It shouldn't have assumptions by definition but having multiple perspectives is true. If theories were objective truth they would not have to redefine them or consider new theories. Physics and math may be objective. When considering real world data and when we try to interpret the results based on limited evidence we can adopt false perceptions.

I don't understand what you're saying. Science has a fundamental assumption: All rational observers share a reality whereof they can induct fundamental laws. I was complaining that my teacher inconsistently applies this assumption.

-Duxwing

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I tend to think of logic as being like "consistency". Like, if a person believes A and B, and C must be true if A and B are, then they will believe C, whereas a person who is not logical might believe A and B but not believe C. Probably, they are assigning some sort of probabilistic belief to A and B but not acknowledging it completely, so they think A and B are each likely, but C is not, so probably they will cease to believe in at least one of A or B, or else come to believe in C, at a later date.

 

[Semantics]

When it comes to the grand questions about the universe and and its underlying mechanisms/forces maybe logic isn't entirely able to provide adequate answers at this point, mostly because new data is constantly being discovered. You can make logical claims on the basis of what is there already but these claims could very well be illogical in the presence of the entire data pool (there will probably never be a time when the extremities of this pool are charted, simply due to the insufficiency of the human mind.)

That being said, logic is entirely able to refute many of the unsubstantiated arguments that Christians, for example, raise because they're working out of a bounded system that doesn't accept new data: the Bible. As soon as someone takes the Bible to be the inspired, infallible word of God, you can have a field day revealing the logical inconsistencies to them , and rightfully so.

Going back to the op, I agree with you almost completely. Just yesterday I was discussing Christianity with my mum and it was like I just couldn't get through to her. She was saying I was logical but she either a) didn't actually understand my analysis or b) followed my conclusions yet somehow didn't agree with them because she, of course, retained her belief in God post discussion. If a), she wouldn't know if what I'm saying is logical, since she's not following and if b), she also shouldn't be labelling me logical because by her reasoning, I'm wrong.

Either way, it seems as if superstitious people know deep down that their claims hold no weight, hence them calling people who provide sound refutations logical, yet they can't bring themselves to concede that they're in the wrong. They wilfully fool themselves because their belief gives them hope or a sense of wellbeing.

 

[Sly-fy]

Strong Te types especially tend to use the phrase "...but that`s different..." When confronted with inconsistencies in their logic, because they assign mutually incompatible explanations to different problems and situations (all of which, highly subjectively biased.) For example, a Te dominant ESTJ is notoriously predictable to argue in this manner: "Well sure, beating your wife is a violent thing to do, but you don`t have to be a violent person to beat your wife..."

I apologize for the graphic nature of the example that I used, but I think it`s a good, demonstrative (however invented) example of a Te pattern of thinking, as they can make two entirely contradictory statements in the same sentence and feel completely content with it (they have no problems believing it as such.) Anyway, my perception is that these are the kinds of lines along which Te types think, and I don`t find such "logic" logical in the slightest. And don`t even get me started on dominant Fi types...

 

[Rualani]

Sometimes I feel like it's a mixture of cultural connotations of the word and a sort of feel for how a person goes about solving the problems. However, if you apply logic as a label, I can only see problems in the future.

Point #1The only way to determine a what's 'logical' is to follow the argument itself!

Perhaps, an understanding of logical is built around an understanding of what counts for proper use of logic in discourse. Then, if someone prefers this mode of discourse, you have a "logical" person. As for the debate between non-empirically grounded claims and those backed by evidence, I don't think it has anything to do with the logic question at all! How they go about debating these points may be proof of being logical, but that just goes back to point #1.

From my own biased point of view, I tend to view a persons effort towards checking their own biases and having an honest discourse as a sign that I might have ran into a logical person. Since, I have claimed that I can only find this out through logical discourse... How do I know if I am that logical person. Oh dear, I must follow this train of thought some more.

Follows train into oblivion