Pages

Monday, April 13, 2009

In the figure above . . .

"Note: Figure not drawn to scale."

In other words, the figure looks nothing like the one drawn.

A test to test logic and reasoning skills is inherently flawed in its base assumption. That logic can be tested. At SePA last year I had an awesome conversation with Bekah DiSipio about the logic course she was taking in college, that logic is just a form of reasoning that conforms to certain rules. The rules of the game of logic must be assumed. But there are so many different rules that can be established, with or without justification, that there can be no real "wrong" logic, just bad logic. Bad logic, of course, being based on bad rules. And even that just depends on your point of view. 

This is something I've heard the dude on Life Changing Radio talk about sometimes, with the rise of post modernism, that logic is dying. He talks a lot about the contrast of Western logic and Eastern logic, and now that logic is dying (or just generally disregarded in its credibility) those differences doesn't matter and Christians can meet non-believers on the heart level. Regardless of the validity of these statements, I think it demonstrates that logic is just a faculty we assign to reason, and not something that applies to everyone. Some people just reason differently. Logic is less useful in light of this fact.

I'm not a logic junkie. I wouldn't know. But it seems to me a test to test logic and reasoning is the most pointless test in the world. I resent the pressure to get a good score, that I am automatically defined by how well I do on a certain stupid test. I regret that there is no easier and more beneficial way to process prospective students on their actual worth, not just the number that's pulled out of the air by Collegeboard. I hate that intelligence is equivocated to logical reasoning. Logical is not my default setting, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid.

I'm not denying logic is useful - I'm homeschooled, I've been beaten over the head with the importance of learning logic since I was six years old. I just hate that logic doesn't come easily to me. And I kind of hate the SAT for no good reason. 

I'll stop whining and get back to studying now.

6 comments:

Art said...

I don't understand this: "The rules of the game of logic must be assumed. But there are so many different rules that can be established, with or without justification, that there can be no real "wrong" logic, just bad logic."

Sure, logic makes assumptions. But they are reasonable assumptions, such as P=P. (Tautology)

"I hate that intelligence is equivocated to logical reasoning. Logical is not my default setting, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid." I can see how that would be annoying.

But by the same logic, (hehe) since logic /is/ my default setting, I kind of like the SAT for no good reason.

Can I complain when it seems that feelers are better at doing interps? Maybe we just have to learn to cope with our natural deficiencies.

I wonder, is it fair to set either logic or emotion as the standard for determining meaning and truth and value?

Hayley said...

I did that thing where I get stuck in my own head and can't see anything else from any other sort of lens. :P What I meant was, or rather what we discussed, was that it's not really possible for something to be ILlogical so not as it comes to its conclusion through set rules. That would qualify as logic. But who's to say what's good logic and what's not? Who's to say what assumptions are reasonable?

Ultimately, x is true not /because of/ reason or logic but because it /is/ so. Truth /is./ And just because we can use logic to ascertain truth doesn't mean that logic is raison d'etre of truth.

It was generally foolish of me to pick a fight with something I don't understand on ground I don't understand, but I was feeling particularly not logical. My contention is not so much with logic, but with a test that claims to measure logic, but is really just a form of institutional sadism. :P

Art said...

Ah. So basically, logic tries to prove that is supreme by hailing to its own authority. Logic decides what's good logic, which is circular.

What if Scripture could tell what logical assumptions to make? Then we'd be going backwards, from Truth which /is/, to find what logic should be.

Michael said...

All of logic comes back to the law of non-contradiction. If you agree with that, all else follows.

Hayley said...

The law of non-contradiction does not help me on the SAT. Except maybe on the verbal part when the list of adjectives includes antonyms.

Does blog commenting count as speaking?

Falling Wings of Glass said...

Speaking is a difficult concept. What I say now will be opinion only: it is completely subjective. As I would define it, speaking is when something is said (redundant, yes. important? yes.). By that I mean substance--something that furthers the understanding, or furthers the furthering of the understanding of a concept, thing, person, or anything that relates to them which must lead back to either the nature of man or the nature of God. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I would define speaking as something that matters (as arbitrary as that is)--so many things that are 'spoken' aren't really 'speech,' but many things that are written are.

However, the spoken word holds a power that I would not give to the written word, as much as I love it.