# What logic is Logic is structured thinking. Like all thoughts, logic is a [story](stories.md), but very specific and highly well-organized. Logic is an abstraction. Unlike [understanding](understanding.md), logic doesn't have to connect to [reality](reality.md). APPLICATION: Logic has no bearing on reality, meaning it might be [useless](purpose.md). As a structure, logic builds on logic, but [the human condition](humanity.md) requires the most foundational logic structured on top of [feelings and intuitions](mind-feelings.md). APPLICATION: Logic is frequently built on [feelings](mind-feelings.md) within our [perception](image.md), so we must consider *why* we believe things whenever we [disagree](people-conflicts.md) with others. Instead of fighting against an outside force, our [largest conflicts](conflicts-inner.md) should be in our minds (and typically are anyway). FURTHER APPLICATION: Some [philosophers](philosophy.md) and [scientists](science.md) [imagine](imagination.md) we can make all things logical or even *deductively* logical with enough thinking or observation, but we can't. We're stuck as [feeling](mind-feelings.md) beings that form those feelings around logic, irrespective of [gender](gender.md), [religious doctrine](religion.md), or [understanding](image.md). We infer logic from everything, and everyone naturally forms all their thoughts with some form of logic. However, that logic may not link to reality, for various reasons. But, even when someone isn't sensible, they're still logical upon the framing of thought they've held. APPLICATION: To the degree our upbringing was dysfunctional, we can't trust our logic. Most of it is based on faulty premises. ## Processing Each logical statement is a [value](values.md) of its own, but is made of multiple steps according to a [purpose](purpose.md): ### 1. Data collection First, a person gathers data from [perceptions](image.md), both theirs and others. Each datum is a "premise", which is a declared statement of [fact](reality.md): - A exists - B exists - C exists The data can be inferred or perceived, but finding a 100% true datum is always difficult. We're stuck with mostly secondhand perceptions, and frequently [trust](trust.md) the secondhand perceptions of other people, and it could all be based on a networked set of beliefs that go back to one person who was actually [lying](people-lying.md) or [delusional](image.md). APPLICATION: Deductive logic makes us more [certain](understanding-certainty.md) about everything related to it, so we must seek it out whenever possible. For example, you may not know if someone will say "yes", but you *do* know that people *never* refuse certain things without other reasons. The best data comes from excessive details. While it sometimes happens with [scientific](science.md) and [philosophical](philosophy.md) rigor (and in specific [trades](jobs-specialization.md) like [accounting](money-accounting.md) and [insurance](money-insurance.md)), most people have very little [reason](purpose.md) to take extra time in their [everyday routine](habits.md) for that and simply trust their [intuition](mind-feelings.md). ### 2. Combination By combining premises, we form natural conclusions that the premises stated or implied: - A exists - If A, then X is true While logic must include at least one premise, conclusions usually use at least two: - A exists - B exists - If A and B, then X is true We often use the negative of a concept: - A exists - B doesn't exist - if A and NOT B, then X is true Deductive logic is certain, while inductive logic is likely: - If A, then X is true vs. If A, then X is *probably* true Life itself is typically [uncertain](unknown.md), so 99.99% of daily life is made of inductive logic: - Using comparisons between equivalent or same things. - Broadening a particular element of something into a general idea, or its opposite by applying a general idea to a particular element. - Creating contrasting opposites. - Drawing connections between something's part versus its whole. ### 3. Test While premises and conclusions don't *need* to be true, they're built to fulfill a [purpose](purpose.md), so the logic must conform to [reality](reality.md). [Purposes](purpose.md) require presuming, so we're incapable of making *zero* presumptions or implications of thought, which means *entirely* logical thinking is technically impossible. Barring someone's mental illness, a conclusion must adhere to the boundaries of its premise(s). If experience dictates differently than the conclusion, then the logical statement has premises that were overlooked: - If A, then X is true - BUT at B time I remember when NOT A, but X was still true - Thus, if A or at B time, then X is true APPLICATION: [Imagine](imagination.md) daily life without the following inductive logic statements, all which require [trusting](trust.md) unknown things to achieve a habitual benefit: - "People will drive inside the lines on the road." - "My paycheck will come at the end of the month." - "My friends like me." - "The world will keep spinning, and [I won't die today](mind-feelings-fear.md)." As we gain [experience](maturity.md), we often discover logical fallacies we overlooked when we were younger. Logic is a framework built on past-tense experiences, so purging inaccurate thoughts is a never-ending effort. A good conclusion that withstands [reality's](reality.md) tests requires *many* premises to make it precise enough to be [useful](purpose.md): - If A, NOT B - But when NOT B, C generally happens when D happens - And, if D, then E, F, and probably G - And, C and D likely mean X with the possibility of Y - Y might be B at a later time - In other words, A isn't B, but also expect C, D, E, F, G, X and Y to potentially lead to B later As we gain [self-awareness](awareness.md), we tend to discover many more premises we held and weren't aware of. ## Details For all logic, each premise is a prior conclusion we made beforehand, going all the way back to when we were babies. Once we form those conclusions as "given", we use them as part of the framework for the next logical thing. Most logical reasoning is [habitual](habits.md), so we're unaware of its formation. As you read this, you're acting on hundreds of "given" elements, in this case by observing [language](language.md). This built-up logic system is immensely helpful because we don't have to think about it. The downside, though, is that we're constantly stuck with old information that might be inaccurate or outdated. In the case of an unhealthy [family](people-family.md) upbringing, most of our old information is bad, even after we've [grown up](maturity.md). ## Input Contrary to how we may [intuitively](mind-feelings.md) [imagine](imagination.md), we often receive the *conclusions* first from our [environment](reality.md) and [perceptions](image.md). We first perceive what exists, *then* try to [estimate](imagination.md) what caused that thing. [Mythology](stories-myths.md), origin stories, [cosmology](religion.md), and [history](stories-storytellers.md) are all calculated [stories](stories.md) of how we got here and where we're going. They're relatively unreliable because there aren't enough premises for us to understand fully, though individuals' logical discoveries usually drive people to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) certain things over others. ## Failing Logic can break down either in the structure itself (formal fallacies) or in the context surrounding it (informal fallacies). Philosophers debate endlessly about where to draw the line between those two. Most everyday logic is made of informal fallacies. We [trust](trust.md) many, many things, and [don't typically realize it](mind-bias.md). The faster we must think, the more we trust, but even the deepest and slowest philosophical pondering never *entirely* removes our need to trust specific foundational premises. The most frequent logical fallacies are where the premises *and* the conclusion are true, but unrelated: - The dog is wet, and therefore it took a bath. - HOWEVER: the dog may be wet for many other reasons. The easiest way to detect bad logic is by inverting things or adding something else to see if it becomes silly: - I don't see the moon in the daytime, and the earth is round, so the moon moves around the earth. - SWAP: I don't see the [sun] at nighttime, and the earth is round, so the sun moves around the earth. Generally, if there's a simpler premise-conclusion connection, it's probably more correct (Occam's Razor). Even when it isn't more correct, it's easier to figure out. Most [humor](humor.md) involves bad logic, but often taken to complete absurdity. ## Logic vs. truth Most of our logic is inductive or [fallacy](mind-bias.md), so we require [feelings](mind-feelings.md) to attach logic to reality. Thus, the truth isn't always logical, and logic doesn't always point to the truth. Further, the basis of logic must, by its nature, be inductive. All logic can come from a previous logical concept, linking together like a chain. But, if the chain links itself back to somewhere on itself, it's circular logic, which is a fallacy: - If Y, then Z - If X, then Y - if W, then X - If Z, then W? At its core, we're forced to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) at least one thing is the original source to avoid the ultimate flow of logic from becoming circular: - [Self-perception](image.md) - A trustworthy [group](groups-member.md) of others' self-perceptions - [God/gods](religion.md) Within reality, negations are largely easier to prove than assertions because it requires less effort. Saying "NOT all of X is Y" only requires finding 1 X that isn't Y, but saying "all of X is Y" requires proving a complete and absolute link between the two. While we *can* use logic to discover truths, it's not always the best solution. Emphasizing logic strictly will make a person perpetually critical of everything and create many false-negatives. Logic has its place in [the good life](goodlife.md), but isn't the only tool necessary for healthy [understanding](understanding.md). ## Analysis To make sense of the world, we slice up [reality](reality.md) into various groups: - SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Strengths - PEST analysis: [Political](groups-large.md), [Economic](economics.md), [Socio-Cultural](people-culture.md), and [Technological](technology.md) factors - STAR points: Situation, Task, Action, Result - The 5 "Why's": ask "why" in a sequential chain five times to discover something close to the original cause We form those groupings as separate [values](values.md). In a sense, we're [creating](creations.md) and imposing a model of reality onto our raw [perceptions](image.md). [Math](math.md) is the most popular form of this analysis, and is a broader derivation of logic with [symbolic](symbols.md) numbers instead of simply true/false. Great analysis of anything in particular will always include questioning [preconceived](habits.md) [beliefs](understanding-certainty.md) and [ideas](values.md), meaning that true critical thinking includes self-criticism. While anyone *can* think critically with patience, intelligent people don't need as much patience to do it, which is why smart people have an easier time thinking critically (even if they don't). APPLICATION: To be more logical, think more slowly. Consider all the premises that make the idea 100% true for anyone observing. While an [intuition](mind-feelings.md) grounded on what you're [certain](understanding-certainty.md) of is possible, it requires *lots* of reasoning to [build](creations.md). With enough good inputs, analysis can be amazingly effective at [predicting reality](imagination.md). By magnifying it with logic [technology](technology.md) (i.e., a [computer](computers.md)), great analysis can be terrifyingly reliable about the approximate likelihood of large-scale [trends](trends.md) (though [not *precisely* accurate](imagination.md)). Since we can't gather *all* the inputs, we can never fully [predict the future](imagination.md). There's no way to anticipate things we couldn't have known, so we should only try anticipating if we are [fully certain](understanding-certainty.md) we can do something with it. APPLICATION: Even if you have many qualifiers, you can still find complete certainty in [reality](reality.md) (e.g., "I am completely certain that, assuming the world is not an illusion and that I'm not crazy, I am presently sitting in a chair"). The easiest of these are negations (e.g., "I know I am not a fish"). One useful way to track our [values](values.md) and [understanding](understanding.md) is to perform [thought experiments](paradoxes.md). By creating [imagined](imagination.md) scenarios which force extremes, we can observe nuances we otherwise would overlook. APPLICATION: Analysis can be fun! If you can [understand](understanding.md) others' logic, you can often [discern](imagination.md) almost *exactly* what someone is thinking when they receive a [cue](habits.md). Most [comedians](humor.md) use this to amuse and entertain by adding bad premises that [feel](mind-feelings.md) right, removing premises, or making perfectly logical nonsense. [Stories](stories.md), of every type of media, are [created](creations.md) this way. Over-analysis is when we *should* be doing something else (like gathering more information or unpacking [feelings](mind-feelings.md)) but instead are trying to logically slice up what we know. Over-analyzers often [believe](understanding-certainty.md) their analysis on the principle that they [worked very hard](results.md) and spent lots of time on their thoughts. ## Sensibility While everyone is logical, everyone is *not* sensible. To have "sense" is to understand a broader intuitive context that clarifies whether logic conforms to truth. The following statement is 100% logical, but complete nonsense: - All Icelanders are professional dancers, and all professional dancers are women, so all Icelanders are women. APPLICATION: If you disagree with someone, they [understand](understanding.md) the world differently from you. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong or right. You can only discover *that* by consulting [reality](reality.md), irrespective of anyone's [conduct](people-3_boundaries.md), [reputation](image.md), or [popular opinion](trends.md). Most people [understand](understanding.md) at least some nonsense as being truth, though. They either miss some key premises (especially when they're [young](maturity.md)) or believe a few bad premises (because they were [educated poorly](education.md) or are mentally unwell). But, everyone *thinks* they're rational and sensible, which is a product of [natural conceit](morality-evil.md). This becomes especially dangerous when people reinforce their logic with [statistics](math.md). APPLICATION: Just because you can't prove that a set of logic isn't sound doesn't mean it automatically is. Your [intuition](mind-feelings.md) may understand unspoken logic you [weren't aware](unknown.md) of. While analysis divides, sense combines. But, most intelligent people look down on sensible thinking and often fail to conflate information to make it more [useful](purpose.md). APPLICATION: Over-analysis is the easiest way to lose track of the [truth](reality.md). It also sabotages [common sense](understanding.md), deadens [intuition](mind-feelings.md), and makes the person generally [insufferable](people-3_boundaries.md). We can all become sensible by doing the following, but they all require a great deal of [humility](morality.md): - Believe the opposite of what you believe, then debate fairly with yourself how you're wrong, both ways. - Consider all [perceptions](image.md) and perceived [facts](reality.md) as simply opinions. - [Expect](imagination.md) that everything you believe might be wrong.