Would it be too much to ask...

[elsol]

That everyone I have to work with take a formal logic class?

Seriously...

What the fuck happened to thinking?!?

a. There are fifty widgets out there

b. There is 1 sprocket that touches the fifty things every now and then to make sure they're still out there.

c. The sprocket suddenly says "Hey, I can't touch thing 48 anymore!"

d. So what do we immediately think?!?

There must be something wrong with the sprocket *wallbang*

Fucking shoot me!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

That everyone I have to work with take a formal logic class?

I've advocated that for years. The biggest problem with it so far has been smart people that think they're exempt because they've got an awful high opinion of their own intelligence.

 

[TxRad]

Give me common sense over book smarts any day.....

 

[MagicaPractica]

Give me common sense over book smarts any day.....

Very true. My best friend never had a degree but has a wealth of common sense. On the other hand, had a roommate in college that I had to take to the emergency room twice because she had no common sense whatsoever, but she did have a 4.0 in Biology and was planning on going pre-med.

 

[3113]

That everyone I have to work with take a formal logic class?

I think you're after Occams Razor more than formal logic. And, unfortunately for you, that's the one thing people resist with all their might. There's too many complex theories they want to believe in. I mean, if you go for the most likely and most common sense answer, then you can't believe aliens created Crop Circles, and you might have to believe that Marilyn Monroe really did just overdose, and, yeah, one crazy guy could have shot Kennedy. Things like that.

Nope. No one wants to go for the answer that makes sense. Such answers are no fun at all

 

[elsol]

Give me common sense over book smarts any day.....

Formal Logic == Pseudo-Common Sense for those whom life hasn't bitch-slapped a few times.

See common-sense would have said

a. A Sprocket Checks Widgets to see if it's still there.
b. If a Sprocket says "This Widget is no longer there"... the fucking Sprocket is doing it's job... go check the widget.

Formal Logic would have said.

a. Sprocket checks 50 Widgets.
b. Sprocket check succeeded with 49 widgets, failed with 1.
c. In the past, Sprocket succeeded with failed the widget.
d. Let me start with the widget and work my way back to find the failure point.

Okay... it's not common-sense and probably would have taken a long time to get to me that the widget was down.

But it would have gotten to me eventually... with the common-sense side, I have to rely on someone having common-sense.

Surprisingly, nowadays, life isn't walking around bitch-slapping people enough. (At least, the right people.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Formal Logic == Pseudo-Common Sense for those whom life hasn't bitch-slapped a few times.

Nonsense.

See common-sense would have said

a. A Sprocket Checks Widgets to see if it's still there.
b. If a Sprocket says "This Widget is no longer there"... the fucking Sprocket is doing it's job... go check the widget.

Formal Logic would have said.

a. Sprocket checks 50 Widgets.
b. Sprocket check succeeded with 49 widgets, failed with 1.
c. In the past, Sprocket succeeded with failed the widget.
d. Let me start with the widget and work my way back to find the failure point.

Formal logic would have said given two components to the system provided--sprocket and widget--and failure one identifying the other, then it is necessarily so that there is either a problem with one or the other or both. Primacy of premise is not a function of formal logic unless premise is based on another. As neither of these are based on each other, there is no primacy.

Formal logic is the mapping of all states of necessity, possibility, and impossibility--and contigencies related between them. I don't know what to call what your example was.

*sigh*

/This/ is why people should take a formal logic class--especially if they're to have an opinion on what it does and doesn't do.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I think you're after Occams Razor more than formal logic. And, unfortunately for you, that's the one thing people resist with all their might. There's too many complex theories they want to believe in. I mean, if you go for the most likely and most common sense answer, then you can't believe aliens created Crop Circles, and you might have to believe that Marilyn Monroe really did just overdose, and, yeah, one crazy guy could have shot Kennedy. Things like that.

Nope. No one wants to go for the answer that makes sense. Such answers are no fun at all

Fun? No. Those answers aren't fun, but the seeking of the more fun answers does illustrate the need for people such as us, who can quite creatively invent such fun scenarios. If we could just get past the need these people have to believe said stories are true...

Q_C

 

[Liar]

I think you're after Occams Razor more than formal logic.

Point. And a good one. So now I don't have to make it. Thanks.

 

[Liar]

Formal logic is the mapping of all states of necessity, possibility, and impossibility--and contigencies related between them. I don't know what to call what your example was.

Phronetics, hermeneutic reasoning, probability assessment, Occam's razor, common sense, take your pick. But no, as you say, formal logic, it's not. Logic would only give the possible options. Common sense value the options.

 

[English Lady]

Nonsense.


Formal logic would have said given two components to the system provided--sprocket and widget--and failure one identifying the other, then it is necessarily so that there is either a problem with one or the other or both. Primacy of premise is not a function of formal logic unless premise is based on another. As neither of these are based on each other, there is no primacy.

Formal logic is the mapping of all states of necessity, possibility, and impossibility--and contigencies related between them. I don't know what to call what your example was.

*sigh*

/This/ is why people should take a formal logic class--especially if they're to have an opinion on what it does and doesn't do.

I love it when you talk dirty

 

[elsol]

Phronetics, hermeneutic reasoning, probability assessment, Occam's razor, common sense, take your pick. But no, as you say, formal logic, it's not. Logic would only give the possible options. Common sense value the options.

A truth three is as about the closest I've ever seen in a classroom setting to teaching good troubleshooting methodology.

I don't care about -itys or -tics. I care about the approach and method. I'll take the methods and approach taught in a Formal Logic class because students internalize and use them.

I only took two classes in College or anywhere else which taught method and approach: Logic and Intro to Science Fiction (which should have been renamed Methods of Literary Interpretation).

 

[Liar]

I don't care about -itys or -tics. I care about the approach and method.

Yah, the -icts are nothing but apprach and method. But it's faster to type the academic monkier than to describe the method. And I'm too lazy for that.

The classes I've taken in problem solving, methodology and even ethics and philosophy, have all been centrered around the same concept, we can't know for sure, so we make do with what we've got. The base premise of common sense. Uless we have all the data, logic will only give as vauge answers as the data it's fed. Most of the time, common sense, intuition and logic will all come to the same conclusion, and if you practice on using them, eventually they will correlate more and more.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I should say that I'm grossly against most of these general arm-chair philosopher definitions of what Logic is and isn't and does and doesn't do. Its a science, very involved and intricate.

Common sense is a cliche'. There is not real guideline for common sense aside from "that which I've experienced"--that isn't to say it doesn't have merit, but its far from an end-all-be-all situation as one person's "common sense" can conflict entirely with anothers (I think of times when my uncles have built things like porches or sheds and their life experiences accumulate to hilarious arguments about the best ways to do this or that because its all just common sense).

Logic and the proper employment of it, however, gives us accuracy. It gives us option. It gives us things like the absurd, which sometimes result in truth--a great many of the greatest scientific or political theories were considered commonly nonsense, despite logic showing them both possible and fruitful.

The biggest hinderance to logic? I still stand by it... smart people think they already know it, and often don't. Their using it badly or wrongly, or defining its limitations or functions erroneously, further troubled understandings of its place.

Its a shame, really.

 

[Liar]

Common sense is a cliche'.

Sadly, the way it's often (as you've pointed out, incorrectly and ignorantly) referred to and used, so it logic.

The only difference then is that the person using common sense (or any of it's fancy-schmancy monkiers, phonetics, hermeneutics, whateva) can acknowledge that his reasoning is subjective, and that his data may be incorrect or imprecise, without lessening his position. It's not a science, it's a philosophical POV.

Most people who claims to (and probably believe they do) use logic gets so seduced by it's promises of accuracy and truth that they believe their conclusions are universally true. So they forget to critically examine their premises and data, which renders their logic conclusions irrelevant. (even if they employ it correctly, which rarely happens)

 

[Huckleman2000]

I should say that I'm grossly against most of these general arm-chair philosopher definitions of what Logic is and isn't and does and doesn't do. Its a science, very involved and intricate.

Common sense is a cliche'. There is not real guideline for common sense aside from "that which I've experienced"--that isn't to say it doesn't have merit, but its far from an end-all-be-all situation as one person's "common sense" can conflict entirely with anothers (I think of times when my uncles have built things like porches or sheds and their life experiences accumulate to hilarious arguments about the best ways to do this or that because its all just common sense).

Logic and the proper employment of it, however, gives us accuracy. It gives us option. It gives us things like the absurd, which sometimes result in truth--a great many of the greatest scientific or political theories were considered commonly nonsense, despite logic showing them both possible and fruitful.

The biggest hinderance to logic? I still stand by it... smart people think they already know it, and often don't. Their using it badly or wrongly, or defining its limitations or functions erroneously, further troubled understandings of its place.

Its a shame, really.

I feel the same way about Statistics. Which I guess is sort of a branch of logic, combined with certain types of math - two things that cross lots of people up separately, let alone in concert.

 

[SeaCat]

Common sense is not so common, it requires thought.

This whole debate about Common Sense and Logic reminds me of a story my logic instructor told at the beginning of the semester.

Three guys are walking through the woods when they come across a cave. At the tnrance of the cave is a sign warning of a dragon as well as a pile of charred bones. The three of them get into an argument about what to do. The first wants to explore the cave. The second wants nothing to do with it and backs away. The third, undecided steps to the side.

The first guy walks up to and into the cave. Within minutes a loud roaring is heard and a gout of flame comes blasting out of the cave entrance. Soon after here comes the first guys bones, tossed without ceremony on the pile.

The third guy goes running over to where the second guy is watching. He asked how he knew.

"Well" replied the older guy. " The first guy said that there is no such thing as Dragons. Therefore Logic dictated that there wasn't a dragon in there. Me, I see a pile of bones and common sense tells me that whatever is in there doesn't want me to come calling."

Cat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Common sense is not so common, it requires thought.

This whole debate about Common Sense and Logic reminds me of a story my logic instructor told at the beginning of the semester.

Three guys are walking through the woods when they come across a cave. At the tnrance of the cave is a sign warning of a dragon as well as a pile of charred bones. The three of them get into an argument about what to do. The first wants to explore the cave. The second wants nothing to do with it and backs away. The third, undecided steps to the side.

The first guy walks up to and into the cave. Within minutes a loud roaring is heard and a gout of flame comes blasting out of the cave entrance. Soon after here comes the first guys bones, tossed without ceremony on the pile.

The third guy goes running over to where the second guy is watching. He asked how he knew.

"Well" replied the older guy. " The first guy said that there is no such thing as Dragons. Therefore Logic dictated that there wasn't a dragon in there. Me, I see a pile of bones and common sense tells me that whatever is in there doesn't want me to come calling."

Cat

That's a misinformed teacher, then. Common Sense dictated the dragon didn't exist because everyone knows dragons don't exist. Logic would have said "it is possible because it is not, strictly, impossible".

See, /this/ is the kinda stuff I'm talking about.

Pfft.

 

[Liar]

That's a misinformed teacher, then. Common Sense dictated the dragon didn't exist because everyone knows dragons don't exist.

No cigar. Just like you claim people are not getting Logic (rightly so), you seem to not get common sense. It's ≠ stupidity.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

No cigar. Just like you claim people are not getting Logic (rightly so), you seem to not get common sense. It's ≠ stupidity.

Ah, but here's the rub, and you admitted much of this already... as there is no objective common sense, my understanding of it is perfectly sufficient. Case in point, "dragons don't exist because conventional wisdom is that there is no such thing as dragons' is a perfect example of common sense as it is a matter of experience common to "everyone" (even in a situation where, in the real world, theres charred things and a sign out in front of a cave).

Further examples along those very lines are there not being boogey men in a child's closet, despite their very real reasons for believing there is--common sense dictates that despite the kid's protests, there are other explanations for his emphatic fear as conventional wisdom dictates there is no such thing as a boogey-man. We could say "well, then its real to the KID", but that's not common sense at all--that's perception/reality/subjectivism. We could also say "but, its possible for there to be someone in the closet that disappears when we turn on the light", but we're starting to identify logical possibility--not "common sense".
Logic, however, is formal and has objective structure and rules. They are not "just [a]like".

However, I'm all ears--how is my understanding of common sense insufficient?

 

[S-Des]

Formal logic would have said given two components to the system provided--sprocket and widget--and failure one identifying the other, then it is necessarily so that there is either a problem with one or the other or both. Primacy of premise is not a function of formal logic unless premise is based on another. As neither of these are based on each other, there is no primacy.

Formal logic is the mapping of all states of necessity, possibility, and impossibility--and contigencies related between them. I don't know what to call what your example was.

Ummm....sure Joe....whatever you say. Sorry, I understood about every third word.

I've done troubleshooting jobs ever since I got out of trade school. The new job is an equal mix of "common sense" and technical knowledge. I love it, because you never know what to expect, so it keeps you on your toes. Unfortunately, I'm better at the technical end, so I hope I can do a good enough job to make them happy. I'm not sure if my weakness with "common sense" is due to genetics, or if it comes from the way I was raised (my dad didn't have the patience to explain to me how things worked, so if I didn't get it right away, he'd do it himself or have my older brother do it).

One way or another, for some of us, it doesn't matter how hard we follow troubleshooting techniques (which I follow religiously), we just don't have that knack for seeing the obvious. I try to make up for it by working hard. I've also seen people who are just lazy (or disinterested). It's frustrating to those who understand it so easily. I can identify because of teaching guitar (which came very easily to me). There are some students who don't understand the most basic concepts, no matter how you try to explain them. Others pick them up instantly.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ummm....sure Joe....whatever you say. Sorry, I understood about every third word.

I've done troubleshooting jobs ever since I got out of trade school. The new job is an equal mix of "common sense" and technical knowledge. I love it, because you never know what to expect, so it keeps you on your toes. Unfortunately, I'm better at the technical end, so I hope I can do a good enough job to make them happy. I'm not sure if my weakness with "common sense" is due to genetics, or if it comes from the way I was raised (my dad didn't have the patience to explain to me how things worked, so if I didn't get it right away, he'd do it himself or have my older brother do it).

One way or another, for some of us, it doesn't matter how hard we follow troubleshooting techniques (which I follow religiously), we just don't have that knack for seeing the obvious. I try to make up for it by working hard. I've also seen people who are just lazy (or disinterested). It's frustrating to those who understand it so easily. I can identify because of teaching guitar (which came very easily to me). There are some students who don't understand the most basic concepts, no matter how you try to explain them. Others pick them up instantly.

I think father-son relationships are a big part of practical common sense. I wouldn't know a thing about cars, or building stuff, or personal finances, or all sorts of stuff were it not for having a dad that let me buddy along as a kid whenever anything was happening.

And I don't mean to be overly technical with regard to logic, but it /is/ my field. The short-hand to understanding where it fits and how accessible it is to master is knowing that there are /years/ worth of study in the field of Logic--the odds of someone just intuiting perfect knowledge of it is about as likely as someone intuiting perfect knowledge of statistics in a long weekend of "thinkin' bout it".

 

[S-Des]

I think father-son relationships are a big part of practical common sense. I wouldn't know a thing about cars, or building stuff, or personal finances, or all sorts of stuff were it not for having a dad that let me buddy along as a kid whenever anything was happening.

And I don't mean to be overly technical with regard to logic, but it /is/ my field. The short-hand to understanding where it fits and how accessible it is to master is knowing that there are /years/ worth of study in the field of Logic--the odds of someone just intuiting perfect knowledge of it is about as likely as someone intuiting perfect knowledge of statistics in a long weekend of "thinkin' bout it".

By all means, be technical. I use these threads as a way to gain knowledge (although sometimes it's a dicey proposal). I'm the same way when someone starts a music thread. I thought your post was very interesting (just way over my head ).

In my new job, there are so many things that can go wrong (from physical damage to wires to heat damage on surface mount chips), that common sense plays a huge role. Using a flowchart of technical diagnosis won't work because there are just too many possible reasons for any given problem. Also, I'm responsible for physical repairs (like shelving units that go bad). It's a weird balance of the two.

 

[Liar]

However, I'm all ears--how is my understanding of common sense insufficient?

Well, just as with logic, there can be bad application of common sense and good application of it.

I see perfect and clear cut logic in the dragon story. The guy applied formal logic to the premise "there are no dragons" and came to a perfectly logic conclusion. If A (number of dragons anywhere) = 0 then B (number of dragons in cave) !> 0.

Now, you'd probably argue that that's an illogical premise. And you'd be right. But it's also a crappy "common sensical" (or something) premise. It's common sense applied with context ignorance. Good common sense would say "Ok, no dragon. So? Them bones means trouble. And you're still rushing into a friggin cave without knowing what's in there. Better you than me." It's basically what you do when formal logic don't give you anything other than "it might be this or it might be thet or it might be a million other things", unsufficient and vague conclusions due to due to unsufficient and vague data. Which, in real life, data almost always is.



ps. If I fail to make myself clear, it might be because I've been awake for 32 hours. Phronetic problem solving, is kinda my field, as it links to lingustics, conversation analysis, didactics and other weird crap I'm neck deep in. But I'm not used to talk about it in English, and not on an insomnia streak.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, just as with logic, there can be bad application of common sense and good application of it.

I see perfect and clear cut logic in the dragon story. The guy applied formal logic to the premise "there are no dragons" and came to a perfectly logic conclusion. If A (number of dragons anywhere) = 0 then B (number of dragons in cave) !> 0.

In this set-up, the conclusion is assumed from the beginning and that's not formal logic. If anything, assuming "there are no dragons" is a common sense statement. That's /fairly/ evident.

Now, you'd probably argue that that's an illogical premise. And you'd be right.

It's not an illogical premise (there's not really such a thing as an illogical premise, as premises are just propositions--their relationship with other premises can be logical or not), its a false premise or a true premise... assumable as one or the other based on things /entirely/ independant of logic. The closest logic comes to having anything to say about dragons existing is that it is possible as nothing in the definition of "Dragon" or "existing" precludes each other. Now /that/ is logic.

But it's also a crappy "common sensical" (or something) premise. It's common sense applied with context ignorance. Good common sense would say "Ok, no dragon. So? Them bones means trouble. And you're still rushing into a friggin cave without knowing what's in there. Better you than me."

That wasn't the example given, though. The example given was that "logic" said that dragons don't exist--so the person doesn't believe there are dragons in the cave (which is, again, nonsense, because that has nothing to do with formal reasoning at all). Good common sense on JUST the existance of dragons would say that "no, dragons don't exist" (and for very common and sensible reasons).

Expanding that out to the example with the cave, common sense wouldn't be able to conclude much--if anything. See, in the example given, both outcomes are examples of common sense in action. On the one hand, common sense ruling over what's seen (which happens all the time) and saying "dragons just don't exist" and on the other hand, common sense being taken to a lateral conclusion of "dragons just don't exist, but /something/ is going on here".

It's basically what you do when formal logic don't give you anything other than "it might be this or it might be thet or it might be a million other things", unsufficient and vague conclusions due to due to unsufficient and vague data. Which, in real life, data almost always is.

That is /entirely/ beside the point. The disagreement was the role of "logic" in the example given earlier... and then your opinion of /my/ understanding of "common sense".

Again, I'm all ears... how is my understanding of common sense insufficient? You spent some time telling me how logic fits into the stated scenario (when, truly, it doesn't in the way you described), and that there are good and bad applications of common sense, but you didn't /actually/ answer the question.

But, then, if you're staying awake long periods of time and Logic isn't your field, then this isn't really a fair contest of understandings as I'm both well-rested and Logic is what I do--and for a long, long time now.