Does everyone understand logic?

I think everyone uses logic in order to reason. I like the example of the muzzle and the white coat.I believe this is CS Lewis’; it sure sounds like his.

One man fears a dog because he sees it is always muzzled in public. Another man fears a dog because he has a white coat and he was once bitten by a dog with a white coat.

I think everyone can understand the the first’s logic. We all see the faulty logic of the second’s. In that sense, we all understand logic.

I think many do not realize that reason from logic is only as good as the underlying, initial assumptions. Treating logic as the infallibl

I think everyone uses logic in order to reason. I like the example of the muzzle and the white coat.I believe this is CS Lewis’; it sure sounds like his.

One man fears a dog because he sees it is always muzzled in public. Another man fears a dog because he has a white coat and he was once bitten by a dog with a white coat.

I think everyone can understand the the first’s logic. We all see the faulty logic of the second’s. In that sense, we all understand logic.

I think many do not realize that reason from logic is only as good as the underlying, initial assumptions. Treating logic as the infallible way to all truth is committing the cardinal sin of unquestioningly accepting all axioms.

Understanding logic fully should lead one to invest the greatest effort in deciding from which axioms to begin. To this degree, most do not understand logic. Most accept their axioms on authority - as a sheep follows the ass in front of it.

Anyone who is capable of providing for their own basic survival needs understands basic logic. They may not be familiar with the logic formulas or advanced statements and implications but they understand the logical consequences of how things work in daily life.

Logic is very similar to science because science is based on logic.

Logic is a powerful tool for being able to avoid the mental traps of decision making.

There are plenty of books about how people in general act irrationally, are easily influenced and are generally disorganized.

To avoid problems caused by these types of actions, logic is extremely valuable, but its NOT an exact science.

Nor is it a “one size fits all”. Different problems require different approaches, and often even really intelligent people need to have specific logic plans explained to them. This is a popular activity in Universities.

So, no, not everyone understands Logic, you can train yoursel

Logic is a powerful tool for being able to avoid the mental traps of decision making.

There are plenty of books about how people in general act irrationally, are easily influenced and are generally disorganized.

To avoid problems caused by these types of actions, logic is extremely valuable, but its NOT an exact science.

Nor is it a “one size fits all”. Different problems require different approaches, and often even really intelligent people need to have specific logic plans explained to them. This is a popular activity in Universities.

So, no, not everyone understands Logic, you can train yourself, and learn clever ways to understand the world around you.

Just for fun, a simple, and then a more complicated example.

Ever met anyone who buys a car because its “Blue” ?

You can do them a favor, by listing all the things they want from a car, on paper.

Maybe “easy parking”, economical, hatch back, room for four, maximum price, etc.

The car they need, and can afford may turn out to be white - but they will get much better value. Next time they buy a car, they will make a list of things to consider first, and may even sort them in order of importance.

Lets go one step further.

Someone tries to tell you the Earth is Flat, and that the Sun doesn't set every day because the Earth revolves, but because it just gets too far away to see, and so it becomes night.

So, logically, due to “perspective”, as things get further away, they appear smaller. So you say “well how come the Sun is the same size from the time it rises to the time it sets, oh, and by the way, as I gaze out to sea watching the Sun drop below the horizon, I can see the upper decks of the big ocean liner coming towards me over the same horizon, but I can’t see its hull till it gets much closer”

So now, that person will no longer talk to you, because you used logic to prove that they are wrong. This is good, because you don’t want to hang around with people who go along with silly ideas.

Developing “Logic” is a lifetime effort.

Which kind of logic? The word is used to refer to different things. You probably refer to the rules of deductive or inductive reasoning, rather than symbolic logic.

And to your question, everyone understands some of what you mean by logic, but even people who you’d consider clearly logical probably don’t have a comprehensive understanding of all the nuances of deductive or inductive reasoning, nor do most people understand all the nuances of symbolic logic, nor do most people have a comprehensive understanding of logical fallacies (bad reasoning that sounds convincing), and so on. Yet everybody

Which kind of logic? The word is used to refer to different things. You probably refer to the rules of deductive or inductive reasoning, rather than symbolic logic.

And to your question, everyone understands some of what you mean by logic, but even people who you’d consider clearly logical probably don’t have a comprehensive understanding of all the nuances of deductive or inductive reasoning, nor do most people understand all the nuances of symbolic logic, nor do most people have a comprehensive understanding of logical fallacies (bad reasoning that sounds convincing), and so on. Yet everybody understands all of these to some degree and applies it in their life to some degree (e.g. lipstick on the collar means cheating bastard, logic). The difference is that of understanding math enough to add up the coins in your valet and being able to talk about set theory. Also, many people even with a very good grasp of deductive and inductive reasoning and symbolic logic refuse to apply it to all facets of life. In fact everybody probably has a blind spot somewhere. Our brains turn reasoning down when emotions are in play.

Does everyone understand logic?

Everybody understands some logic, like the Common Notions in Euclid: If A=BA=B and B=CB=C thenA=CA=C. Most people can work out

If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C

Many people have a basic grounding in logic, whether in terms of mathematics or law (rules of evidence, some parts of the rules of civil and criminal procedure, and more) or science (scientific method, design of experiments, falsification of conjectures).

Many people think that they understand logic more than they do. Trump, for example. Creationists. Lots of people suffering from irrational fe

Does everyone understand logic?

Everybody understands some logic, like the Common Notions in Euclid: If A=BA=B and B=CB=C thenA=CA=C. Most people can work out

If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C

Many people have a basic grounding in logic, whether in terms of mathematics or law (rules of evidence, some parts of the rules of civil and criminal procedure, and more) or science (scientific method, design of experiments, falsification of conjectures).

Many people think that they understand logic more than they do. Trump, for example. Creationists. Lots of people suffering from irrational fears and hatreds.

I could cite a number of philosophers who have demonstrated total misunderstanding of results in advanced logic, where they understood the proofs, but not the application to people or computers.

A few people understand logic deeply. Aristotle made a decent beginning. Boole, Russell, Gödel, Turing, Tarski, Quine, Fitch, Cohen, and others since have gone a lot further. A fair number of graduate students have mastered the basics of this very advanced material, but there is far more of it than anyone can get to.

Nobody understands logic completely. Gödel and Tarski proved that, if it wasn’t obvious already.

Logic is a series of concentric circles. (Bear with me.)

There's the Rational circle, where you are. It’s full of all the logical stuff that you believe because you're a logical person.

There's the Irrational circle, outside of the Rational circle. That's full of all the stuff that most people believe because they’re illogical people.

And then there are some further circles outside that. The realms of fantasy. Stuff that's too absurd to contemplate.

Have a diagram:

As you go from the outside of the diagram to the centre, you get progressively more logical.

Oh, the centre circle? Well, we all know so

Logic is a series of concentric circles. (Bear with me.)

There's the Rational circle, where you are. It’s full of all the logical stuff that you believe because you're a logical person.

There's the Irrational circle, outside of the Rational circle. That's full of all the stuff that most people believe because they’re illogical people.

And then there are some further circles outside that. The realms of fantasy. Stuff that's too absurd to contemplate.

Have a diagram:

As you go from the outside of the diagram to the centre, you get progressively more logical.

Oh, the centre circle? Well, we all know some folks who think they're smarter than us. But they’re never discussing anything important. It’s mostly black holes, clever ways of voting in elections and the correct capitalisation of movie titles. You swear you once overheard two of them arguing about how clouds stay in the sky. I mean, that's just obvious, right? It's just… it's just… right?

Okay, let's say I found a magic wand and raised your IQ by 20 points. What difference would you notice?

Some of the smart people in the centre circle would no longer seem all that smart.

It’s not that you’ve taken sides in their arguments about tiny differences that don’t matter. You just don’t see them as valid arguments any more. The correct answer is obvious.

You’ve stepped inside the centre circle - you’ve zoomed in. And it turns out that the centre circle contains its own irrational stuff that most people believe, then a smaller amount of rational stuff that you believe, and then a nucleus of so-called really smart people arguing about more tiny differences that don’t matter (simply connected n-dimensional manifolds, whether Chairman Mao was tragically misunderstood, the phonetics of extinct Caucasian languages.)

So instead of looking like this:

Your world now looks like this (2.5x magnification):

Now you see the problem with telling people to be logical. It’s a fractal. If you could switch places with your neighbourhood Mensa member and not notice any relative change in your surroundings, then you have to assume you could also switch places with the person you're arguing against and not notice any change.

No-one wakes up in the morning and thinks “I’m going to try being illogical today, and see how that goes!” You can count the number of people who have become more logical because you told them to on the fingers of no hands.

Goodall’s Incompleteness Theorem: Whenever you think you’re defending logic, you’re actually defending something different.

You will always end up saying something like:

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic is complicated and mine is simple.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic is morally repugnant and mine is morally virtuous.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic doesn’t take sufficient notice of the empirical evidence and mine does.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your motivation for using that logic is questionable and mine is pure.”

In none of those cases are you arguing for logic and against illogic. You’re arguing for simplicity, morality, empiricism and ingenuity against their opposites.

You can’t build a logic fortress to keep out the arguments you don’t like. As soon as you do, your opponents will tell you you’ve built the walls of the logic fortress in the wrong place. Unless you do what the Christian apologists do and script every argument in advance, you’re going to have to argue over values at some point.

When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.

When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this. There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the interesting part, the neat techniques he or she

When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.

When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this. There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.

However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition. For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying; the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet! Shut up and let me get on with it!”

Both philosophical and mathematical logic has several branches, that differ quite a bit from each other. However, just to get a feeling, a good example of philosophical logic is this: Intuitionistic type theory - Wikipedia, and a good example of mathematical logic is this: Forcing (mathematics) - Wikipedia

Edit: Some comments have made me feel I didn’t make myself completely clear. I did not intend to put down philosophers. Sure, I was describing the experience of the seminars from my point of view, but I thought the value of having good definitions would be obvious enough to make it clear it was written with a certain amount of self-deprecation and tongue-in-cheek. For the record, I think both approaches are valuable. I also think it is difficult to do both approaches at the same time, so having two separate disciplines is important.

It depends of course what we mean by “understand” and by “logic”.

Symbolic logic only happens as systems of logic. A system of logic is essentially a formal language together with definitions, rules, axioms etc. Most people presumably could learn the specifics of any system and learn how to use them proficiently.

However, this isn’t the same thing at all as “understanding symbolic logic”.

To claim that one understands symbolic logic one would need to demonstrate that one understands logic itself, something that no one has done so far beyond what Aristotle explained 2,500 years ago. In particular,

It depends of course what we mean by “understand” and by “logic”.

Symbolic logic only happens as systems of logic. A system of logic is essentially a formal language together with definitions, rules, axioms etc. Most people presumably could learn the specifics of any system and learn how to use them proficiently.

However, this isn’t the same thing at all as “understanding symbolic logic”.

To claim that one understands symbolic logic one would need to demonstrate that one understands logic itself, something that no one has done so far beyond what Aristotle explained 2,500 years ago. In particular, it is a sad fact of the current situation that mathematical logic only proves one thing which is that mathematicians do not understand logic. Presumably, they understand how to use various systems of symbolic logic, but I still haven’t seen any of them demonstrates that they understand logic itself.

Still, presumably, this is something that can be done. But we are not there yet.

Perhaps something else needs to be said.

Mathematical logic has a long history now since George Boole first published his work in the middle of the 19th century. There are also more mathematicians today than ever before, probably something like several millions mathematicians worldwide. Only a small fraction of these would work on mathematical logic, but it is probably the case that there are more mathematicians working on mathematical logic today than logicians in the 2,400 years of the history of formal logic from Aristotle to just before George Boole. And yet, mathematicians still don’t understand logic! This suggests that being a mathematician doesn’t help understand logic. Possibly, it is an obstacle.

So, sure, one can understand symbolic logic and spend their entire life not understanding logic. I think that needed to be said.

What I show below is not some idea I found in a book about philosophy or logic. I developed this explanation from long years of contemplating the subject.

Bruce R. Bain's answer to What does “everything in between” mean?

Some of the writings on the subject may cause us to think

that it is very complicated. Well, it is a complete science.

However, there is a simple way to understand it.

Our science of Logic is based upon Aristotle's Three Laws.

=============================================

So this is an explanation of The Three Laws.

These 3 Laws show us Two Extremes or "opposites" and a Mean Value

whic

What I show below is not some idea I found in a book about philosophy or logic. I developed this explanation from long years of contemplating the subject.

Bruce R. Bain's answer to What does “everything in between” mean?

Some of the writings on the subject may cause us to think

that it is very complicated. Well, it is a complete science.

However, there is a simple way to understand it.

Our science of Logic is based upon Aristotle's Three Laws.

=============================================

So this is an explanation of The Three Laws.

These 3 Laws show us Two Extremes or "opposites" and a Mean Value

which is "something in the middle" between the two opposites.

I usually teach Logic by suggesting that a student print out an image

of the Gray Scale such as Artists use. Here is a link to a Gray Scale image.

There are basically, 3 parts. There are two complete opposites; White and Black.

There are the "Two Extremes". Opposites like this are referred to as antithetical.

There is a larger part of the image that is between in different degrees.

These are the various shades of gray.

These are the Middle or the Middling Values which are also called

The "Mean Value".

These 3 parts are called "Identities". It is just like you or I.

We each have our "identity". I am not you. You are not me.

Other people are neither you nor I.


So, the following uses a lot of repetition to emphasize each of these distinct Identities. When we set out to analyze by logic, we need to "identify"

2 Extremes and a Mean Value (or several Mean Values.

I can IDENTIFY the Three Laws of Logic

(as taught by the Greek philosopher Aristotle)

in the following manner:

(1) The Law of Identity

(2) The Law of Non-Contradiction

(3) The Law of the Excluded Middle

Allow me to present the several facets of the subject, as follows.

First, it is necessary to find the Identity.

Second, it is necessary to find the Opposite of the Identity. The Opposite of the Identity is that which “contradicts” the Identity

Third, it is necessary to find the Middling Value, or Mean Value,

between the two extremes. Any Middling Value is an Identity also, but just not the same thing as the set of Identities that it is “excluded” from.

The problem may be introduced for our consideration as follows.

(1) What is the claim for the Identity?

(2) What are the 2 Extremes, or Opposites?

(3) What is the Mean Value or Middling Value?

.

This is how we identify the basic facts about the subject of our research.

A Fundamental means to obtain all knowledge is the concept of OPPOSITES or the ..."dichotomy"

The image of the Dichotomy gives us Two Extremes.

One Extreme is the Contradiction of its opposite.

What is needed to complete our "thinking" process is something in the middle of the Two Extremes.

This is called a Mean or a "Middle Value" or "Middling Value" .

Thus, identifying two extremes or opposites

and a "mean" completes our knowledge.

In the study of Logic, one of the three Laws of Logic

is called the Law of the "Excluded Middle"

EXAMPLE:

If the Identities (extremes) are

White and Black,

the Mean or "Middling Value" or

"Middle Value" between Black and White

would be obvious

as the color Gray.

See images for "Gray Scale" which shows

the "Middling values" or "mean values"

[Search images + gray scale]

This shows TWO EXTREMES and a MEAN.

In summary then, it can be seen that to "know" anything,

we need to identify Two Extreme Identities

and some Identity that is in the Middle between

the Two Extremes.

4 = 4

4 is not equal to 3.99999

3.99999 is a mean or "middling value"

Regarding the identity 4, the value 3.99999 is not 4.

4 is not equal to 4.11111

4.11111 is a mean or "middling value".

Regarding the identity 4, 4.11111 is not 4.

.

5 = 5

5 is not 5.1 or 5.2

5.1 or 5.2 is a mean or "middling value".

5 is not 5.01

5.01 is a mean or "middling value".

5 is not 4.99

4.99 is a mean or "middling value".

.

Remember, mean or "middling values" are

the Excluded Middle values.

"Middling Values" are excluded from the Identity.

==========================================

.

.

Search out pairs of word opposites in books or the Internet.

Such opposites or "Dichotomies" give you the foundation

for speaking and writing English, and engaging in dialogue.

Two Extremes and a Mean are necessary

for all "value" or Identity determinations.

Remember:

Black and White are Extremes.

Gray represents a Mean, or "middling" value

between the two Extremes.

If one cannot identify two Extremes of "value" it will be difficult to understand what a Mean value would be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= is read "the same as" or "equals"

In philosophy, which derives from ancient Greek Math and Geometry, statements like "0.5 = 1/2" are demonstrative (or show)

THE IDENTITY STATEMENT, which is one of

the Three Laws of Aristotelian Logic.

Statements as to being, or anything written as

an EQUATION, are illustrative of IDENTITY STATEMENTS.

Statements of Identity are used for definitions.

Any statement, which says that SOMETHING IS,

shows itself to be an IDENTITY STATEMENT.

This is the First "law" of Logic

A = "A" is illustrative of an Identity Statement.

"The Phone Connection is poor."; is an Identity Statement.

It is a statement of Fact about something.

Bruce is happy, is like writing Bruce = (or is) happy

That is a statement about "identity" or What-------Bruce------Is.

EXAMPLE: Jane Chen is a Businesswoman.

That is a statement of Identity, which says What Jane Chen is.

There are three Ancient Laws of Logic taken from Aristotle, and they are more than 2,000 years old.

All of Science, and indeed, all of Western Civilization is based upon the acceptance of these as demonstrations of what is True, and what is False, and how the mind works..

QUESTION:

What is an "identity statement"?

The mind operates "logically" whether we know it or not.

The ancient Greeks figured that out.

Any statement as to BEING, or any statement that says

"Something Is__________________"

...is an Identity Statement.

"Hot Soup is Good!" is an identity statement. Soup = Good

"I am a woman"; is illustrative of an identity statement

COMPARISON and CONTRAST are the essential components of

the Three Laws of Logic.

Most books on reasoning, employ the reference to COMPARISON and CONTRAST

as the common means for analyzing ideas.

To compare one identity to another, to see SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES between identities is how the mind "thinks". The mind compares LIKES and UNLIKES, and things that are ALMOST LIKE.

Here again, are The Three Laws of Logic as taught by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle

(1) The Aristotelian LAW OF IDENTITY. (A = A)

(2) The Aristotelian LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION.

(A is not equal to Z)

(3) The Aristotelian LAW OF The EXCLUDED MIDDLE.

(A is not equal to "almost A")

The way it can be explained most simply is this way.

(1) The Aristotelian LAW OF IDENTITY. (White is White)

(2) The Aristotelian LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. (White is not Black)

(3) The Aristotelian LAW OF The EXCLUDED MIDDLE. (Gray is not White and Gray is not Black)

The Mind works by comparing one identity to another, to see SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES

These are the foundation of knowledge in Science, in Law, in Philosophy and in Theology.

Being familiar with them is the key to skill in critical thinking.

Gray as a color is a MIDDLING value between Black and White

The Gray Scale offers the comparison with the two "extremes":

So seeing Black and White as the Two Extremes and Gray as a "Middling Value" or "Middle" between the Two Extremes, establishes what is called a DICHOTOMY or DUAD or what can be seen as a basic Duality of Opposing identities. This duality is symbolized by the Chinese Tai Chi Symbol. In Western Civilization, it can be found in other ways, such as "Post and Lintel" Architecture, the "posts" representing the two extremes, and the "lintel" representing the spectrum of Mean Values or Middling Values..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

Gray is a MIDDLING or MIDDLE and Middles are "excluded" from the “opposites” if f the Identity statements refer to values that are not in the Middle.

The Excluded Middle can always be thought of as something that is "almost the same" as an identity, but "not quite the same" as the identity. That is why it is "excluded" from being the identity.

If one wishes to refer to a "middle" as the identity discussed,

then one is discussing the "middle" and changing it into one of the identities that compose one part of a Dichotomy, which of itself, has an "opposite".

By the way, one of the reasons that modern people have so much difficulty sorting out and analyzing what they read, is that modern authors have learned a cunning trick. They do not identify two extremes or two opposites in their compositions. They allow to wallow around in their rhetorical compositions as though nothing existed but "middles" or a never ending sequence of "gray" generalities.

It is a very clever trick..

So we may ask, WHAT IS THINKING?

Thinking is a process of comparing any identity to the Likes or Similars in our memory.

Thinking is a process of comparing any identity to its Unlikes or Dissimilar identities in our memory.

This is why books that write about study of written material come somewhat close to teaching us, when they encourage us to Compare----And---Contrast.

They come close, but they never actually teach people what "thinking" actually is.

. Now you know, what you probably will not find written in a book.

=

By the way, I spotted an error in logic immediately in your question.

It is a common error that I have come to recognize, because English is a language based upon logic.

Your question began "Will we....etc." You are not a plurality, or a "we" and neither am I. You are an individual. Your question, to be consistent with logic, should begin; "Will I.....ever be able....etc."

If you are an agent or representative for a group of persons or an organization,

then you can write as the plurality, "we".

So take caution not to write of yourself, as though you are part of some kind of a herd of humanity. You are a unique individual.

The answer is; Yes, of course you will, because I will teach you.

See also:

Bruce R. Bain
· Answered June 15
What are the rules that make philosophy work? If philosophy is about "how to think" and not "what to think", what are the rules underlying this "how"?

What Are the Three Laws of Logic?

See also:

The Ten Rules of Pragma Dialectics:

#1 The Freedom Rule

#2 The Burden of Proof Rule

#3 The Stand Point Rule

#4 The Relevance Rule

#5 The Unexpressed Premise Rule

#6 The Starting Point Rule

#7 The Argumentative Scheme Rule

#8 The Validity Rule

#9 The Closure Rule

#10 The Usage Rule


See also: Analysis of any proposition in the context of the 3 Laws of Logic is representative of

“logical thinking”.

"magic triangle" + "rearrangement of fractions"
Sorry, this video is no longer available.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%22magic+triangle%22+%2b+%22rearrangement+of+fractions%22&cvid=900e35dbfd8e4581b09e55d58c4e040d&aqs=edge..69i57.12548j0j4&PC=U531&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3d%2522magic%2btriangle%2522%2b%252B%2b%2522rearrangement%2bof%2bfractions%2522%26cvid%3d900e35dbfd8e4581b09e55d58c4e040d%26aqs%3dedge..69i57.12548j0j4%26FORM%3dANAB01%26PC%3dU531&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=1D04A7200EA8A1C8C2511D04A7200EA8A1C8C251&FORM=WRVORC
Bruce R. Bain
· Answered April 20
Why is antithesis true in logic?
What is proposed in this question is not established as fact, so the first order of disciplined thought is to analyze the proposition in accordance with available facts and reasons to see if indeed, “the antithesis is true in logic”. The first observation is that the interrogative (a question), when…
(more)

Bruce R. Bain's answer to In civil discourse, is "intellectual combat" actually a thing yet?

(58) Bruce R. Bain's answer to Why do people automatically view the center or moderate position of something as the correct view? Isn’t this obviously a logical flaw? - Quora

Bruce R. Bain's answer to What is the connection (if any) between philosophic logic/argumentation, math logic and proofs, and computer logic? To my untrained eye they seem like three very different areas of study.

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Why if everything is possible why are there impossible things?

Jack Enjei's share of Bruce R. Bain's answer to What is the difference between thinking and reasoning?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to What is the logical error when one tries to compare two things whilst ignoring relevant information that differentiates the two things?

Aristotelian logic

See on http://www.Quora.com Bruce Bain’s answer:

What are we doing when we are thinking?

15 Valid Forms: Mark McIntire

How does one go about applying his/her obligation as critical and analytical thinking in evaluating opinions?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to How do the laws of mathematics and formal logic relate to one another? Can one be derived from the other?

How does a dichotomy differ from a contradiction?

Jack Enjei's share of Bruce R. Bain's answer to What is the difference between thinking and reasoning?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to What is the name of the fallacy in which an unsupported rule, such as "all A's are B", is simply declared to be true and then that rule is used to "prove" that a particular example of A is clearly a B because the rule "proves" it to be so?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Is it wrong for Western logic to have considered contradictions false for so many centuries?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Are the classical judgments of validity and soundness in logic and argument still currently taught, in those terms? Or are there other terms used today?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Is logic incomplete? What can we do to replace logic?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Why is the law of non-contradiction a useful fiction?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Why are my feelings able to pick up on answers faster than my logic?

Is it a logical fallacy to falsely assume that two subsets of a population, with conflicting viewpoints, have a significant intersection?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to How can you restrain your emotions and think rationally?

Bruce R. Bain's answer to Are emotions related to fallacies? Why?

(1) Bruce R. Bain's answer to Is 'logic' basically a system of reasoning? If so, could you give me a few examples? - Quora

Bruce R. Bain
· Updated November 3, 2017
What is "first principles" thinking?
I suppose it can be said that many people have their own understanding of “thinking” at some popular level. However, since Aristotle articulated the science of logic, Western Civilization has assumed that “thinking” is conducted logically in accordance with The Three Laws that Aristotle outlined. In th…
(more)

It depends what you mean by logic. Logic can be as simple as AND, OR, XOR, and NOT—and if you program computers you’ll use it every day.

That’s probably not what you meant though. There are many kinds of logic.

When I was in High School I was taught a list of a few dozen logical fallacies, why each one was wrong (with lots of examples), and literally begged by my teacher not to use them. It was the most liberating experience because I finally had a formal way to explain why some people are full of shit. Some people use these fallacies all the time.

Here is an example: I might say “Well maybe Susa

It depends what you mean by logic. Logic can be as simple as AND, OR, XOR, and NOT—and if you program computers you’ll use it every day.

That’s probably not what you meant though. There are many kinds of logic.

When I was in High School I was taught a list of a few dozen logical fallacies, why each one was wrong (with lots of examples), and literally begged by my teacher not to use them. It was the most liberating experience because I finally had a formal way to explain why some people are full of shit. Some people use these fallacies all the time.

Here is an example: I might say “Well maybe Susan is right.” and my illogical friend might say “You always take her side!”. This is illogical because whether I always take Susan’s side or not, it has no bearing on whether she is right or not in this specific case.

Maybe that’s still not what you mean. Do you mean formal logic? There are many different kinds, but they can all help you approach a difficult problem and break it down into manageable pieces. That kind of skill is useful in lots of day-to-day situations. Most people use it without formal training, but they still use it.

Building a house so it doesn’t fall down is hard, and some people can figure out how to do it without a lot of formal training, but however you learn how to do it, the techniques are going to be similar. If you don’t know how to build a house you can either learn by building a bunch of houses on your own, watch them fall down, figure out why, and build better houses the next time—or you can learn from someone who already knows. Logic is no different.

Think of it as a discussion, not an answer. Well, logical people have always been hated by the masses(think Galileo, Socrates). Sadly the masses comprise mostly of people with very limited mental freedom. It lacks sensible people. Most of the people of a society are of a rigid mentality and identify with some kind of belief system. An important point to be noted here is that belief rules out all possibilities of free thinking, logic and innovation. The moment you believe in something, you kill the possibility of exploring or researching any further. The problem is, Logical thinking is hard wor

Think of it as a discussion, not an answer. Well, logical people have always been hated by the masses(think Galileo, Socrates). Sadly the masses comprise mostly of people with very limited mental freedom. It lacks sensible people. Most of the people of a society are of a rigid mentality and identify with some kind of belief system. An important point to be noted here is that belief rules out all possibilities of free thinking, logic and innovation. The moment you believe in something, you kill the possibility of exploring or researching any further. The problem is, Logical thinking is hard work and belief is convenient. So you see, people always want to take the easy way. They are scared of being outcasted by their societies. Almost everybody is capable of logical thinking but they make a choice not to swim against the current.
So, when somebody does step up with logic, it hurts the ego of the masses and individuals. Nobody wants to accept their way as the wrong one. Naturally, they hate the logical person. It is not actually the logic of the logical person that they hate, it is his guts.