Everyone believes in how they think it oughta be - John Mayer
I've often wondered how people come to espouse the many differing opinions that are out there. Whether its politics, religion, or even taste in music. What seems like common sense to one person is often completely illogical to another. This is often how the irreligious view the religious, but the phenomenon permeates secular issues as well.When I was a missionary in France, speaking to dozens of people a day about their opinions, I was surprised at how often I would hear the same things from people with the same background. As with any generalization there were exceptions, but I got to the point where I could predict fairly well how a person of a given age and ethnicity would respond to certain question. It was obvious that one's environment, more so than any absolute logic, largely determined one's opinions.
So are we all simply behavioristic products of our environments with no choice in the matter? Obviously Nature plays a role as well, but we definitely don't have a choice in our genetics. While there is surely some individualization that can take place within the same environmental influences, we tend to give ourselves too much credit for coming up with original, well-thought-out ideas. I think that our greatest opportunity for distinction actually lies in choosing our environment. Once we're in the environment that we chose, our logic follows the rules that govern that setting.
The diagram represents Einsteins relativistic explanation of gravity as the warping of the fabric of space-time. While gravity might be the force with which we have the most immediate experience, we still have no consensus as to how it works.
Comments
I agree that most people do not reason or argue well and most are not capable of coming up with truly insightful original arguments. So environment certainly affects most people and their opinions. We also just don't take the time to really think through difficult problems or learn the relevant facts necessary figure out the solution to the problems.
However, I take issue with one thing that you seem to be saying, which is that logic is somehow relative to your situation. Logic is unvarying, and so I reject the idea that somehow there are different kinds. I do, however, acknowledge that often people argue from different premises, so even logical people will reach different conclusions.
Concerning a Grand Unified Logic System, as far as mortals are concerned, I would disagree that such a thing exists. Common systems of logic (e.g. algebra, calculus, boolean) all have limited applicability, and all break down in certain circumstances. Their predictions also contradict each other at times, though each solution is valid within the rules of each given system. Godel (a Princeton mathematician circa Einstein) showed that it is impossible for a system of logic to be self verifying, that is you cannot prove algebra correct using algebra. You always have to step outside the system of logic to invoke some other premise on which the system is built.
So when you say that "logic is unvarying," I'd ask which system?
But assuming, arguendo, that you are correct, I guess what I was taking issue with is that the difference between Bolean logic, and calculus explains the difference between one person preferring conservatives policies and another person preferring liberal policies.
You write, "Once we're in the environment that we chose, our logic follows the rules that govern that setting." My reply is simply that, I agree that a person's policy preferences will usually conform to their surroundings, but that's not necessarily because the logic rules change when the setting changes (at least in a formal logic sense). Instead certain platitudes and premises are accepted for other reasons, such as social pressure, familiarity, exposure, repetition, etc.
I guess what I'm taking issue with is that I'm getting a whiff of this type of relativism where everything is subjective. For example, I hear arguments like this: minority X does worse on math than the population at large, but that's because math is based on white man logic, so of course they are going to do badly. Or the SAT or LSAT are racist tests. Nope. The LSAT is just based on formal logic.
Anyway, that's probably not even your point, so I'm probably just misreading you or missing something.
The same applies to personal preferences. Most people don't choose between liberalism and conservativism based on the merits of the logic employed by each(like seeing calculus as more useful/correct than algebra), though many would claim precisely that. I agree with the reasons you listed for one's choice of political leanings (social pressure, familiarity, exposure, repetition), but think that membership in a given school of thought requires more than an adoption of certain premises, but an actual change of logic system.
Kuhn (a philosopher of science) argued that when one moves from Newtonian Mechanics to Relativity, one does not simply expand the former to new situations (motion near the speed of light, etc.), but that the two explanations are independent systems of analysis. There is much common vocabulary between the two, but many of the terms have subtly different meanings. Mass, for example, was an invariable measure of inertia to Newton, whereas it was a variable quantity interchangeable with energy to Einstein. Kuhn would argue that these are fundamentally different ideas (which happen to give essentially the same values in most situations) to which we have assigned the same word.
I think there is a similar phenomenon in political settings. While there is some commonality, words like freedom, rights, liberty, and choice have very different functional meanings to a libertarian than to a socialist.
You give the example of Newtonian Mechanics v. Relativity to make your point and show how there are two systems of analysis. I agree that these systems lead to different end points, but that is because they apply different rules; not because the logic used to apply those rules changes.
Same observation goes for politics. Different political movements use terms differently like "freedom." But we can all learn to use terms in the same way. I don't that just because we use terms in different ways it means that the logic that applies to political theories is any different. Just the rules that form the theory or framework.
For example, the term activism is used by originalists to mean judges stepping outside the law to reach decisions based on their policy preferences. Some liberals use the term activist to mean overturning democratically adopted legislation. Of course we can talk past each other forver using different defintions. Still, I would say that, were we to analyze these possitions, that logic would still apply the same to both.
If all cows eat grass, and Bessy is a cow, then bessy eats grass. That rule simply follows regardless of the circumstance. Now, we can argue about whether Bessy is a cow, or whether all cows actually eat grass, but in the end if both are true, then Bessy eats grass.
Maybe where we are taking past each other is on what is a "rule" or "premise" and what is "logic" that is seperate from those premises.
--rdh
Well, I'm getting a little tired of this. I think I'll move on to a new post about the testing bias that you mentioned.