Logic

David Kelly opens his Logic textbook  (The Art of Reasoning) with this picture:

 

 

 

We study logic to think clearly. There are traditions we have that claim to make it possible for us to improve our thinking if we study that tradition and put the tools it offers into practice.  I will call “Science” the current metanarrative of choice by many of the educators in America. This tradition bases much of its success on the particular approach to logic that it uses.  The reason given: it works. It establishes facts.

 

But facts are only another name for the collection of truths that we accept as part of our metanarrative. Even in metanarratives where the elite explain everyday occurences in terms of the actions of anthropomorphic Gods, they make the same kind of claims.  We consider many such “primitive” views today pre-scientific. That may mean they do not use logic the way we do. Compare the sign above with the one below.

It seems to me, that many of us feel a real "picture" of what life's choices seem to be like is more like this:

 

(Sorry about the poor quality of my graphics!)

 

Is there something wrong with the second sign? Was it funny? (Which, by the way is sort of the same thing.)

 

Wouldn’t we say that the second sign is not logical? A four lane highway can’t all converge into the center.

 

What enables us to know this so intuitively? Are our minds connected to the real world in such a way that healthy thinking gives us a clear picture of the world?

 

Next