What does it mean by "reasonable" if not "logical" in the classical sense? — Harry Hindu

It says reasonable precisely because reason does not reduce to mere logic. Otherwise it would have said logical.

It says reasonable precisely because reason does not reduce to mere logic. Otherwise it would have said logical. — Pantagruel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/reasonable

Synonyms & Antonyms of reasonable
1) according to the rules of logic
his answer is perfectly reasonable

Seems to me that it could have said logical and still meant reasonable.

1) according to the rules of logic
his answer is perfectly reasonable — Harry Hindu

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical.

If it is logical that if A then B, then it is reasonable to believe B given A.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places because scientific experiments have established this as a fact. However this paradoxical result is not logical. In fact, it arguably contradicts all the rules of logic.

Dialectic presupposes disagreement. — Pantagruel

Then it presupposes a truth - that disagreements exist.

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel

Then your quibble is with the scribbles, and not what the scribbles are about?

If it is logical that if A then B, then it is reasonable to believe B given A.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places because scientific experiments have established this as a fact. However this paradoxical result is not logical. In fact, it arguably contradicts all the rules of logic. — Pantagruel

Which is to say that it contradicts other reasons that we have for believing that particles can exist simultaneously in two different places. Science says one thing, our senses say another. So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation?

Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So, is the "reasonable reconciliation" in your

Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel

arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning?

So, how do we reasonably reconcile these opposing viewpoints to the point where our opposing viewpoints aren't actually in opposition, but were seemingly in opposition prior to any reasonable reconciliation? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that is the challenge to which dialectic aspires.

So, is the "reasonable reconciliation" ...arrived at via correct or incorrect reasoning? — Harry Hindu

Hmmm. Can you arrive at correct conclusions from incorrect premises? Insofar as the conclusion is viewed as a synthesis of its premises it is not possible to do so. This was Aldous Huxley's construal of the ends-means relationship. One cannot achieve a goal through methods that contradict the goal because the means are constitutive of the end.

However some people do hold true beliefs without being aware of the foundations of those beliefs. Also, it seems quite possible to think completely reasonably, and yet arrive a spurious beliefs. If significant information is missing. The history of science testifies to this.

This says that logic is reasonable, not that reason is logical. — Pantagruel

You don't seem to understand what synonym means. If you look up the synonym of logical then you will get reasonable as an entry.

If significant information is missing. — Pantagruel

Which is to say that you didn't have all the relevant reasons to support your conclusion. What seems logical and reasonable actually wasnt - the difference between inductive and deductive logic. One is based on the laws of logic, the other on observation over time.

When reasonable reconciliation fails, is that a failure of the dialectic method, or the failure of one of the participants to fully grasp what is being said and talked about? If the former, then dialectic logic fails to aspire to do what you claim it does. If the latter, then you are advocating that the conclusion fits more with the law of non-contradiction, not some kind of multi-value logic.

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

Logic. — Harry Hindu

There's always the question of which logic is appropriate for the task — fdrake

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

"Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel

Looking at this, it seems to me that we've simply been talking past each other this whole time.

You and fdrake agreed that some form of logic is required, but which kind of logic was the question.

My point has basically been that any kind of logic you choose always resolves down to the law of non-contradiction being a necessary component of determining truth because in asking the question the OP is asking, it presumes that there is something that is best to believe and best not to believe, regarding some subject matter. I took "best to believe" to be the "useful to believe", and the truer the map, the more useful the map.

Maybe it should be up to creativesoul to clarify what he meant by "best to believe regarding some subject matter".

The difference between them, ergo, is not logic in the sense one side has used it well and the other side has not; rather the actual source of disputes is the assumptions each side has made in their arguments and assumptions are not a matter of logic. Assumptions are made in the low visibility fog of ignorance and you may just as well flip a coin to decide which ones you want to base your views on for logic is utterly useless in this regard. — TheMadFool

Part of being logical is limiting the amount of assumptions to a bare minimum - like things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. There comes a point in where we need to really think about what we say because we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context.

The whole point of condoning the idea that truth can be found in contradictions is to make it easier on the emotional control center of the brain. It is a means of deluding ourselves into thinking that what we believe is true, even when others think the opposite.

we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context. — Harry Hindu

I think that you have hit on a key idea here. Words are indeed polysemous, and in the very lively sense you allude to here. But it isn't necessarily in the "same context" as it is I think in "overlapping contexts". Whatever our current state of accord might be, the foundational experiences that circumscribe your life-world are necessarily different than mine.

What I'm referring to is how language-use contradicts how we think about things.

If you find it possible to think about something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, or a married bachelor, in your mind that doesn't simply take the form of the scribbles or the sounds in saying it, then the very concept of "thinking" would be different for both of us because I can't think of something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, or a married bachelor, except thinking about the words themselves, which are just scribbles or sounds without referring to any conceivable thing.

A contradiction can be a thought of as a complete absence of any overlap.

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true? — Harry Hindu

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though.

Feeling safe is not being safe, by the way...

One can be told the 'right' sorts of things to believe and feel that they are safe, and yet not be.

What I was referring to was the hermenutic circle, where the meaning of anything (word, concept, idea) is determined by the context in which it occurs, while simultaneously the context is composed of such meanings. Then the concept of "thinking" is different for us to the extent that we have different contextual-histories involving the concept of thinking.

What I was referring to was the hermenutic circle, where the meaning of anything (word, concept, idea) is determined by the context in which it occurs, while simultaneously the context is composed of such meanings — Pantagruel

Where truth is whatever we say it is, because we said so...

What about the things that exist in their entirety prior to our naming them? What role do they play in this circle?

Then the concept of "thinking" is different for us to the extent that we have different contextual-histories involving the concept of thinking. — Pantagruel

Not involving the concept of thinking, but how to communicate the concept of thinking to others. In asking for definitions we are asking where each of our boundaries for such a thing as thinking are - where we might be overlapping and where we aren't, and why, and we are forced to do so via language - symbolism - because we aren't telepathic.

When we find that we have no overlap (a contradiction), we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves if we are actually talking about the same thing - that our scribbles refer to the same bounded concept in each of our minds. In teasing out each other's usage we can discover conceptual failures of the thing we are talking about. The incorrect usage of words could be the result of not being aware of all the grammatical rules of a language, or it could be a manifestation of the deeper problem of how you see the world.

Think about learning a second language. You have the concepts down, but how to communicate them using new rules is something else.

If telling me that someone is brave and not-brave at the same time isn't an error in word usage, then it must be a conceptual error of what it means to be brave. The boundary of how you define bravery needs to be compared to mine to understand what aspects of reality (how people behave in stressful situations) we are really talking about when using words, like "bravery" - where the boundaries of our concepts that the scribble, "bravery" refers to.

It still stands that people behave in certain ways in stressful situations (fight or flight). It's simply the boundaries we each have established for defining where "bravery" begins and ends among those behaviors. For you, how much flight is too much to then say that the person is no longer brave? What if running allowed you to be brave another day? Bravery presumes the truth that people either run or fight for what they want. How much of each entails "bravery" is for each of us may be subjective, but if we are going to start giving out awards for bravery, then it needs to be defined as awards are not given to the not-brave.

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful.

Feeling safe is not being safe, by the way...

One can be told the 'right' sorts of things to believe and feel that they are safe, and yet not be. — creativesoul

So something else other than an exchange of subjective opinions is required for determining if a state of true safety exists.

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound.

Part of being logical is limiting the amount of assumptions to a bare minimum - like things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. There comes a point in where we need to really think about what we say because we've reached a point in the evolution of our language-use where words are being convoluted and loaded with with meanings that contradict how words are used in other instances, which just makes words useless if they can mean their opposites in the same context.

The whole point of condoning the idea that truth can be found in contradictions is to make it easier on the emotional control center of the brain. It is a means of deluding ourselves into thinking that what we believe is true, even when others think the opposite. — Harry Hindu

Do you mind explaining a bit more?

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

I've offered at least three already. Address those.

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul

I've offered at least three already. Address those. — creativesoul

You're not being very helpful. Your behavior indicates that you really aren't interested in what you put out in your OP. You seem to be showing that, at least for you, there is no method for

determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

I said "Logic". You disagree and claim that something else is needed, yet you can't even name the thing that is needed, or what logic is missing. The funny thing is that you keep using logic to make your case, and no other method.

Under review...

For those leaning on logic, please remember this...

The sole aim of logic is to preserve truth. The sole aim of logical notation is to take proper account of pre-existing thought, belief, and/or statements thereof, all of which also presuppose truth somewhere along the line. — creativesoul

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true?
— Harry Hindu

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

The above are explicitly stated reasons that existed in time prior to your statement above. In your defense, I did not let you know about it at the time. Perhaps you missed that?

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful. — Harry Hindu

If you're asking if you can apply logic to ethical questions, then no. There is no such thing as an objective morality. When it is right to open an economy is when individuals feel safe in going out in public, and that can vary from individual to individual. So it seems to me that you are attempting to answer an unanswerable question, or attempting to answer a subjective question as if it had an objective answer. — Harry Hindu

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul

I said the above as a result of those paragraphs immediately preceding it... You invoked all sorts of loaded language that I had not used. I suggest copy my words and then give it a bit... think about them as they are written. Do not add to them, for they are very carefully chosen. Trust me.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though.
— creativesoul
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

I've offered at least three already. Address those.
— creativesoul
You're not being very helpful. — Harry Hindu

A re read would be most helpful.

One who knows nothing at all about using logic can tell whether or not all sorts of simple statements are true. So, if one such individual already knew 'X', and suddenly found themselves witnessing conflicting opinions in direct conflict to 'X', they could, quite possibly already be, one step forward in determining which of the opinions were reliable and true.

That is not because one was using logic. It's because they already knew 'X' and thus could not believe a statement to the contrary. That's the human condition grounding the 'LNC'.

Logic is not always needed and is never adequate for determining/establishing which conflicting statement is true, if any are.

Logic isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway...

Some logic is still being used despite the fact that it's little more than an accounting malpractice of certain thought and belief. For example, here's a famous, or perhaps infamous one...

If one follows the logic of Gettier, one will arrive at saying that Smith has belief that he does not have. Smith does not believe that Jones will get the job. Jones getting the job does not make Smith's belief true. It makes it false, for Smith believed that Smith, himself, would get the job.

The so-called 'rules of logical entailment' permit changing the referent of "the man with ten coins in his pocket" from Smith to Jones. In doing so that changes Smith's own belief about who will get the job from himself to Jones. It changes the truth conditions(and meaning) of Smith's belief. The problem of course, is that while Smith believes the statement, that belief includes a rigid designator for "the man with ten coins in his pocket". That phrase - in Smith's own belief - refers to himself, and no other individual.

However, in order to agree with Gettier - regarding Case I - the reader has to also agree that if Jones got the job, Smith's belief would somehoe be true. Clearly, Smith's belief could only be true if he, himself, got the job, because that is what he believed would happen.

What happens in that case is that Gettier loses sight of what Smith's belief is by virtue of talking about it as though it were equivalent to the statement/proposition. It's not. That's a sleight of hand, because...

The statement/proposition has truth conditions aside from, and/or greater than Smith's belief. Smith's belief does not.

The statement, when held in isolation, when looked at as though it is somehow separate from Smith's belief, is true regardless of who the man is, so long as he has ten coins in his pocket.

However, and this is key...

Smith's belief statement would have been true if, and only if, he got the job, because he was the man with ten coins in his pocket that he believed would. He did not. Smith's belief was false.

So...

Logic alone is inadequate for establishing whether or not any particular statement is true. True statements are more reliable than false ones. Determining which opinion is best requires seeking out true ones whenever we can. Logic alone cannot do that.

The above are explicitly stated reasons that existed in time prior to your statement above. In your defense, I did not let you know about it at the time. Perhaps you missed that? — creativesoul

Perhaps you forgot your OP:

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

If you have a problem with logic "presupposing some truth", then why did you presuppose that there are two opposing opinions and that there is a best one to believe?

It seems to me that logic doesn't presuppose some truth, you do, and logic is simply used to determine if another truth (the conclusion) can follow from your presupposed truth (the premise).

Name a method of seeking what is best to believe that doesn't presuppose that there is something best to believe - a truth. What else could you have meant by what is "best to believe"?

The fact is that there are other methods that others claim to use to decide what is best to believe and that you seem at a loss of naming. They are faith, revelation, authority and popularity to name a few, but as you might already know, these are logical fallacies.

One who knows nothing at all about using logic can tell whether or not all sorts of simple statements are true. So, if one such individual already knew 'X', and suddenly found themselves witnessing conflicting opinions in direct conflict to 'X', they could, quite possibly already be, one step forward in determining which of the opinions were reliable and true. — creativesoul

How did you come to know X, and in knowing X, are you not saying X is a truth, in which case you used logic to know X?

So, how's the conflict resolution going, chaps? Is all that truth and logic doing it for you?

It does it for me, but if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

It does it for me... — Harry Hindu

I didn't realise you suffered from internal conflict.

if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Harry Hindu

Well I don't think logic can create values. It might be that you have found for yourself a limitation of logic, unless you have an answer to your own question.

But what I was asking, was about the conflict between you and everyone else commenting. And I can see of course that that conflict has not at all been resolved. So I wonder if it is to some extent an externalisation of that internal conflict that you claim is resolved by logic?

But what I was asking, was about the conflict between you and everyone else commenting. — unenlightened

You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. So, while they disagree with their words, they agree with their actions.

And I can see of course that that conflict has not at all been resolved. So I wonder if it is to some extent an externalisation of that internal conflict that you claim is resolved by logic? — unenlightened

You're confusing logic with delusions.

You're mistaken. I have shown that fdrake and Pantragruel agreed with me that logic is indeed necessary. It is only creativesoul that seems to have a problem with this. However I have shown that although creativesoul claims that they disagree, they keep attempting to use logic to make their case. — Harry Hindu

Kindly do not misrepresent my position. I consider that a reportable offence.

Logic is one constituent of reason. Reason most emphatically does NOT reduce to logic. Reason also functions through analogy, intuition, synthesis, etc.

Frankly, this seems to me to be trivially true and trivially evident; I can't imagine why anyone would have trouble with this.

You're mistaken. — Harry Hindu

No Harry. As you see, I am not mistaken. @Pantagruel, @creativesoul and myself, (and @fdrake can speak for himself), but three of us are fairly clear in our continued disagreement with you. You cannot "show" that people agree with you and call that a resolution, you have to allow their autonomy and persuade them to agree.

You're confusing logic with delusions. — Harry Hindu

Well I hope,Harry, that you have some fairly clear evidence of my making that confusion, because otherwise it would be a rather cheap rhetorical (not logical) ad hom. But again, it rather looks as though it is you that has the delusion that you have been persuasive when you have not.

I think you might begin to see a pattern for yourself in these interchanges that treats the other's view as pathological whenever it differs from yours, or else as secretly agreeing even when they avowedly disagree. I have always found you to be a frustrating person to try and dialogue with, but here, I feel I am finally getting an insight into what is going on for you. You seem to have a great intolerance for ambiguity and disagreement that comes over to me, and I think to others, as a rather bullying arrogance that probably masks a deal of insecurity.

Kindly do not misrepresent my position. I consider that a reportable offence. — Pantagruel

Yet I made the same statement here and you didn't say anything of the sort.

It's only after unenlightened started his bandwagon that you decided to jump on.

As I have shown, our disagreement has never been about whether logic is or isn't useful for determining the question the OP is asking - if there is a best method for determining what opposing opinion is best to believe. It has been on the nature of dialectic logic.

Logic is one constituent of reason. Reason most emphatically does NOT reduce to logic. Reason also functions through analogy, intuition, synthesis, etc. — Pantagruel

As has been shown by me, you, fdrake and others, there are various forms of logic just as there are various forms of reason. It would be my bet that each form of logic maps onto each form of reasoning that you want to provide as an example.

I also showed that logical and reasonable are synonyms of each other. Do I seriously need to provide you with the definition of "synonym" as well?

No Harry. As you see, I am not mistaken. Pantagruel, @creativesoul and myself, (and @fdrake can speak for himself), but three of us are fairly clear in our continued disagreement with you. You cannot "show" that people agree with you and call that a resolution, you have to allow their autonomy and persuade them to agree. — unenlightened

Pantagruel has been so inconsistent and intellectually dishonest since their initial interaction with me, I seriously don't know what they think or believe.

Creativesoul's issue is that "logic presupposes truth". If that is a problem then there is a problem with their OP, as it presupposes some truth.

When asked to clarify what they meant by "best to believe" creativesoul responded with:

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul

So, what methodology helps to determine what opinions are true. That would be logic.

The fact that fdrake's post is the long drawn out version of simply saying "Logic" and both creativesoul and Baden gave high marks for the post, then it seems that they all agree as well. The high marks might be for the detailed complexity of their post, or it might be a sign of favoritism being that my post, though much shorter, said the same thing and now is when they want to disagree that logic is necessary. In doing so, they just disagreed with fdrake and contradicted themselves.

As for you, you can keep posting because all it does is help my case and hurt yours. Every time you use logic to show how logic isn't useful, you defeat your own argument and strengthen mine. The fact that we disagree has more to do with your inability to remove your politically partisan glasses. You argue for the sake of arguing. You sound like my 13 year old son sometimes.