ϕ Logic vs. ‘common sense’

Logic is a doctrine of correct judgment and it’s “our everything” (in the sense that it is necessary for any theory and learning). But to discover or ‘invent’ (formulate for the very first time) the laws of logic it is already necessary to think (judge) correctly — so there is a question:

Isn’t there a kind of paradox? Or at least a vicious circle?

Indeed, if you think correctly you can formulate correct logic laws and using them prove something (and maybe the way of how you judged about correctness of the laws formulated) — but if you don’t then the laws are invalid and you are unable even to find that.

Seems the ability of reasoning is intrinsic for people (at least for those who is educated enough) and the ‘discovery’ of the ‘laws’ is just a result of observations (of own and other people thinking and judgments and their correspondence to a real state) and further refinements of them. But usually that ability is unconscious (intuitive) and informal (nobody judges like “A is true because there exists a rule that if B then A and currently B is true” — no, it sounds like “A because B” instead). This is called common sense and logical thinking. And this is quite different from logical thinking from the Logic point of view.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

💻 Programming: recipe: response validation against OpenAPI schema in Python

💡💻 Genius inventions: FORTH programming language

⚙️ TRIZ notes: the law of regression