more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Although logic does not seem specially relevant to reasoning, immediate implication and immediate inconsistency do seem important for reasoning.
Gist of Idea
Logic has little relevance to reasoning, except when logical conclusions are immediate
Source
Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2)
Book Ref
Harman,Gilbert: 'Change in View: Principles of Reasoning' [MIP 1986], p.20
A Reaction
Ordinary thinkers can't possibly track complex logical implications, so we have obviously developed strategies for coping. I assume formal logic is contructed from the basic ingredients of the immediate and obvious implications, such as modus ponens.
| 19304 | The rules of reasoning are not the rules of logic [Harman] |
| 19303 | Implication just accumulates conclusions, but inference may also revise our views [Harman] |
| 19305 | The Gambler's Fallacy (ten blacks, so red is due) overemphasises the early part of a sequence [Harman] |
| 19308 | We strongly desire to believe what is true, even though logic does not require it [Harman] |
| 19307 | If there is a great cost to avoiding inconsistency, we learn to reason our way around it [Harman] |
| 19309 | Logic has little relevance to reasoning, except when logical conclusions are immediate [Harman] |
| 19306 | It is a principle of reasoning not to clutter your mind with trivialities [Harman] |
| 19310 | High probability premises need not imply high probability conclusions [Harman] |
| 19311 | In revision of belief, we need to keep track of justifications for foundations, but not for coherence [Harman] |
| 19312 | Coherence is intelligible connections, especially one element explaining another [Harman] |