Logic vs emotion

[drkitten]

Yes, this is a kind merging of induction and deduction,

This statement is true.

but in a very limited sense. And it is much more.

And this is untrue.

And if you want to find out more, I refer you, again, to Sir Karl, who dealt with this issue much more explicity and logically than the straw man version you've presented above.

And this is my last word on the subject.

 

[BillHoyt]

And this is my last word on the subject.

Pardon me for having gone over your head. B'uh B'ai.

 

[Suggestologist]

Let us say, for example, that we actually did induce the hypothesis that all swans are white. Then we devise a test wherein we raid a local pond, and grab a few swans. We test swan 1. White. Swan 2. White. Swan 3. White. There is no serialization here, unlike mathematical induction, whereby we can declare all swans to be white from this. Each deduction has simply said this is another instance of a white swan. When we finally encounter Swan 5,431 and find it is black, our only recourse is to modify the proposition to some swans are white, or, more boldy, most swans are white.

In theory, we could collect all the swans on earth and find out if they're all white. But it's highly problematic in practice.

We could also look at it from a different perspective which would make the question irrelevant. For example, we could find the portion(s) of DNA that make them white; and define having that DNA (plus the prototypical swanniness parts of the DNA) as being a white swan. Then we could only speak tautologically: All animals with white swan DNA are white swans.

Oops, did that white swan just get coated in black oil? Creating a counter-example is too easy to even contemplate universality.

We have to rule out other possibilities until, in a Holmes-like fashion, we converge on the most probable answer. (Yes, I know; Doyle also incorrectly called it deduction.)

Yes, this is a kind merging of induction and deduction, but in a very limited sense. And it is much more. It introduces this new (in relative terms) retroductive reasoning process.

But we have to remember that the convergence is still subject to error; there may be areas of the unlimited alternative possibilities that we don't know about and so haven't considered.

Isn't abduction what we do when we do experiments on mice; and speculate proportional effects on people?

 

[BillHoyt]

In theory, we could collect all the swans on earth and find out if they're all white. But it's highly problematic in practice.

We could also look at it from a different perspective which would make the question irrelevant. For example, we could find the portion(s) of DNA that make them white; and define having that DNA (plus the prototypical swanniness parts of the DNA) as being a white swan. Then we could only speak tautologically: All animals with white swan DNA are white swans.

Oops, did that white swan just get coated in black oil? Creating a counter-example is too easy to even contemplate universality.



But we have to remember that the convergence is still subject to error; there may be areas of the unlimited alternative possibilities that we don't know about and so haven't considered.

Isn't abduction what we do when we do experiments on mice; and speculate proportional effects on people?

Thank you for that enormous contribution to the discussion. I always like my trash compactor full before I bring its contents to the dump.

 

[Suggestologist]

Thank you for that enormous contribution to the discussion. I always like my trash compactor full before I bring its contents to the dump.

Look who's talking. What does anything you've posted here have anything to do with when Emotional analysis is more appropriate than logical analysis?

 

[IndigoRose]

Look who's talking. What does anything you've posted here have anything to do with when Emotional analysis is more appropriate than logical analysis?

Yes. Maybe we can get this back onto the topic. What is your take on the original question I posted?
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Yes. Maybe we can get this back onto the topic. What is your take on the original question I posted?
IndigoRose

I provided you my take on the question, but you failed to take me up on that angle. I will repeat it here: the question rests on a false premise. It presumes Descarte's error. Logic needs to be fed by premises. One class of such premises is one's emotions. Without the two working together one cannot get what one wants. The dichotomy is false.

 

[IndigoRose]

I provided you my take on the question, but you failed to take me up on that angle. I will repeat it here: the question rests on a false premise. It presumes Descarte's error. Logic needs to be fed by premises. One class of such premises is one's emotions. Without the two working together one cannot get what one wants. The dichotomy is false.

The question was not directed at you. If you want to talk about that, why don't you start a new topic?
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

The question was not directed at you. If you want to talk about that, why don't you start a new topic?
IndigoRose

This is a public forum, run by a skeptic's organization. If you cannot deal with skeptical inquiry, you really ought to question why you are here. If you wish to try to deal with skeptical inquiry, you cannot post publicly and restrict the responses.

I am talking about the premise of your question. That is the topic of this thread. The premise, as I have pointed out, is wrong. It presumes a dichotomy that doesn't really exist.

Now, please address those points.

 

[IndigoRose]

This is a public forum, run by a skeptic's organization. If you cannot deal with skeptical inquiry, you really ought to question why you are here. If you wish to try to deal with skeptical inquiry, you cannot post publicly and restrict the responses.

I am talking about the premise of your question. That is the topic of this thread. The premise, as I have pointed out, is wrong. It presumes a dichotomy that doesn't really exist.

Now, please address those points.

Why don't you start yourself a new thread, and then you can talk all you want about your topic.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Why don't you start yourself a new thread, and then you can talk all you want about your topic.
IndigoRose

Your topic is "Logic vs emotion," is it not?

This was your opening post, was it not?
"Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision? When is emotion more correct to use to make a decision? Under what circumstances are "appeals to emotion" the correct argument?"

The first two questions set up the false dichotomy of logic vs emotion, do they not?

The answer that the question is wrong directly addresses the topic, does it not?

If not, please explain to us all, bit by bit, how this question is off topic.

 

[Suggestologist]

I provided you my take on the question, but you failed to take me up on that angle. I will repeat it here: the question rests on a false premise. It presumes Descarte's error. Logic needs to be fed by premises. One class of such premises is one's emotions. Without the two working together one cannot get what one wants. The dichotomy is false.

While they work together, people generally understand the difference between thinking logically/rationally and thinking emotionally/intuitively. The focus of the question contains no false dichotomy. Decarte's error is a nonsequitor.

 

[BillHoyt]

While they work together, people generally understand the difference between thinking logically/rationally and thinking emotionally/intuitively. The focus of the question contains no false dichotomy. Decarte's error is a nonsequitor.

And they understand that incorrectly. The false dichotomy comes from Descarte's error. Neurobiologically, the body's emotions and its reasoning center are connected. Logically, our needs, wants, desires and values provide the premises for deductive reasoning.

If I buy her a drink and talk with a woman, I may be able to hook up with her.
I want to hook up with that lady.
If I buy that lady a drink and talk with her, I may be able to hook up with her.

The syllogism is the logic used to prove the conclusion, but the pivotal minor premise was totally supplied by my emotion.

If you want to read more about Descarte's error and the close connection between emotion and reason, I suggest Antonio Damasio's Descarte's Error.

 

[Suggestologist]

And they understand that incorrectly. The false dichotomy comes from Descarte's error. Neurobiologically, the body's emotions and its reasoning center are connected. Logically, our needs, wants, desires and values provide the premises for deductive reasoning.

Well, of course, if you didn't have desire (an emotion) to think logically, you probably wouldn't. But that's not the question. The question is more about when to listen to your head, versus when to listen to your heart.

If I buy her a drink and talk with a woman, I may be able to hook up with her.
I want to hook up with that lady.
If I buy that lady a drink and talk with her, I may be able to hook up with her.

The syllogism is the logic used to prove the conclusion, but the pivotal minor premise was totally supplied by my emotion.

Ok, here's what the question is asking: Should you listen to your emotions which may be telling you things like: "She's going to reject you and that's gonna hurt." or should you listen to your head (logic) which may be saying things like: "If you don't talk to her, then you'll never know if you can hook up with her."

Which do you choose to go with?

If you want to read more about Descarte's error and the close connection between emotion and reason, I suggest Antonio Damasio's Descarte's Error.

Bill, if the question had been: When is it appropriate to feel angry versus feeling sad; would you still be going on about Decarte's error? Because, within anger there is often some sadness and vice-versa; but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't the same thing; and it has little to do with the question.

 

[BillHoyt]

Well, of course, if you didn't have desire (an emotion) to think logically, you probably wouldn't. But that's not the question. The question is more about when to listen to your head, versus when to listen to your heart.

You need to re-read the last sentence of the original post.

Ok, here's what the question is asking: Should you listen to your emotions which may be telling you things like: "She's going to reject you and that's gonna hurt." or should you listen to your head (logic) which may be saying things like: "If you don't talk to her, then you'll never know if you can hook up with her."

Which do you choose to go with?

I already told you, but you insist on this false dichotomy.

Bill, if the question had been: When is it appropriate to feel angry versus feeling sad; would you still be going on about Decarte's error? Because, within anger there is often some sadness and vice-versa; but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't the same thing; and it has little to do with the question.

Re-read the last sentence of the original post.

 

[Suggestologist]

You need to re-read the last sentence of the original post.

I already told you, but you insist on this false dichotomy.

You didn't already answer the question. And there's nothing false about it. Normal people know how to separate the two ideas. And that is what you continue to avoid honestly discussing.

Re-read the last sentence of the original post.

Done. And your point was?

I mean, do you honestly not know the difference between an appeal to emotion and an appeal to logic?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

people generally understand the difference between thinking logically/rationally and thinking emotionally/intuitively.

I agree that that is a false dichotomy.

Close examination of the low-level details of a complex system might be expected lead to clear understanding. It is interesting that what actually tends to happen is exactly the opposite; one starts out with what appears to be a clear understanding, and watches that vanish in the face of more information.

Human decision-making depends (in simplest terms) on a complex and dynamic interplay between the limbic system and the frontal lobes. The original question is not meaningful; it is like asking whether the valves or the pistons are more critical to the operation of a gasoline engine.

 

[BillHoyt]

You didn't already answer the question. And there's nothing false about it. Normal people know how to separate the two ideas. And that is what you continue to avoid honestly discussing.

Appealing to the popularity of an idea is simply the fallacy of appeal to popularity. That people think emotional reasoning and logical reasoning are disconnected is no more relevant to the truth than the fact most people think mind is something very disconnected from brain, or that we have souls. I will answer the question once again: the two are not disconnected. Each of us always uses both. We cannot help it. We may fail to get truthful premises to work with. We may fail to apply premises correctly, but we have no choice but to feed our reasoning engine with premises, including the emotional and we have no choice by to try to reason out with the best logic tools we have.

I mean, do you honestly not know the difference between an appeal to emotion and an appeal to logic?

Yes I do know the difference. Appeal to emotion is an informal fallacy. Appeal to logic is not.

 

[Suggestologist]

I agree that that is a false dichotomy.

Close examination of the low-level details of a complex system might be expected lead to clear understanding. It is interesting that what actually tends to happen is exactly the opposite; one starts out with what appears to be a clear understanding, and watches that vanish in the face of more information.

Human decision-making depends (in simplest terms) on a complex and dynamic interplay between the limbic system and the frontal lobes. The original question is not meaningful; it is like asking whether the valves or the pistons are more critical to the operation of a gasoline engine.

Any dichotomy is then false, because we can always look at things from a different level of detail and find that both sides of the dichotomy are composed of the same fundamental pieces. This then becomes an exercise in postmodernistic Deconstruction. Or enantiodrama.

The question is not about criticality, it's about utility.

There is utility in making the distinction which the thread topic question presupposes: this utility implies potential meaningfullness. What is the utlility in deconstructing it?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Any dichotomy is then false, because we can always look at things from a different level of detail and find that both sides of the dichotomy are composed of the same fundamental pieces. This then becomes an exercise in postmodernistic Deconstruction. Or enantiodrama.

I can't argue with that, I must admit.

The question is not about criticality, it's about utility.

Fair enough. The original question asks when logic is "the correct tool to use to make a decision", implying that one is free to select various tools individually from a toolbox. That doesn't seem quite right to me, even when viewed at a level which involves something like suspension of disbelief as far as details are concerned. One of the distinguishing features of what we call emotions is that they arise involuntarily. What is the utility in even asking whether it is more correct to use emotion to make a decision if one doesn't have any choice in the matter?