The problem this time is logic. Now, I'll begin by saying that mathematics is derived from philosophy, but in between is a step called "logic." So the progression is then, philosophy -> logic -> mathematics. Of course it's easy then to say that mathematics then leads to the natural sciences which in turn lead to the social sciences. The last two steps progress very nicely (thought maybe not, we'll see in the future). We take math and apply it to what we observe, i.e. reality. We take that a step further and apply all of it to what we are, i.e. humans. The problem lies in the steps converting philosophy to math.
The reason for this is because philosophy and math seem like polar opposites. Philosophy is this "thing." that can be called "the study of thought" but really it's much more than that. It's certainly too complicated for someone like me to try and explain (I'm not talking about specific philosophies but instead the thing; philosophy itself). The best I'll do is say it's some unique trait of the human mind that influences and is influenced by everything. Not just about everything, or almost everything, or a lot of things, but everything. Math is completely different. It's not a "thing." It's numbers. It's a system so well defined (and figured out) that there are no contradictions and all operations flow, dare I say, logically from the rules that are given. It is perfect. Not almost perfect, not pretty close to perfect, not the Riemann Sum of the derivative of perfect, but perfect.
Let's contrast this with other systems. What are some other systems? Well, that's a semantic issue because system can be defined in many ways. Regardless, any system based on any definition is engineered through some natural science, all of which currently aren't as nearly as well defined as mathematics. So what is this magical "logic" that is able to transform something so massive and convoluted and untraceable (think air) to something very clear and uniform and well designed (think rocks/crystals/ice).
Well it's really not magical at all because that's what logic's role is. It is intended to provide a ground floor for solving problems. This ground floor must apply to the basic level of understanding found in all humans. This basic level is of course causality: everything happens for a reason (something I agree with wholeheartedly) that has happened beforehand.
This presents a mini-revelation, at least I think so. If logic is trying to put everything within the frame of causality, then that would mean that something illogical would not operate in this frame. It would seem then that things that are illogical are much more important then we give them credit for. While "illogical" often implies silly or stupid, the opposite is true. Things that are illogical operate in a realm that we don't even understand, and possibly could never understand. But let's not be so pessimistic. I often reword the phrase to "Illogical is just a term to describe things we don't yet understand."
But maybe the term illogical doesn't even exist in this sense. My statement implies that science is all about explaining the illogical. This would mean, that before relativity, the orbit of Mercury was "illogical." But it clearly wasn't. It was simply labeled as something that could not yet be explained. But this is not the argument. The argument is that things that we do call "illogical" are merely the same thing as the orbit of Mercury before relativity. So the fact that the orbit of Mercury wasn't labeled as illogical does not have effect on my main argument. My argument is that it should have been called illogical in order to maintain, well, logical consistency for the term illogical.
I'm not done explaining myself however. The point still remains that the sciences are not concerned about explaining the illogical. Science is based on the observation of natural phenomena. In a sense, it is designed to operate in a system where the world cannot be illogical. Remember the progression, logic -> math -> sciences. Therefore, in a scientific sense, logical phenomena cannot be illogical. Let's expand on this. Can you think of any natural phenomena that you would call illogical? Let's say gravity reverses itself tomorrow and becomes a repulsive force. Or Mars just disappears into nothing. Or the sun turns into a giant McDonald's that not only serves some burgers and shit but also maintains the same climate levels on Earth before the transformation. All of these scenarios, while clearly absurd, are not really illogical. Science would look at them and try to figure out the mechanisms on how they could happen, i.e., put them in a logical framework.
So now that we have determined that science did, does, and will not ever explain the illogical, the question remains on what we DO call illogical. I think that the clear answer here is behavior, specifically of the human kind. Before I get into this, let me rephrase my point since it kind of got muddled up above.
I think science has the correct approach. My point is that, aside from a couple of extraordinary cases, NOTHING should be called illogical. "Illogical is a just a term to describe things we don't yet understand." While this means that while plenty of things can be called illogical, they still should not be (just like science did not call the orbit of Mercury illogical). That is because illogical has the connotation of something that is silly, stupid, or something that should not happen. This is not true. I believe things that are truly "illogical" are also astounding. They are mind-boggling, stunning, awe-inspiring. For a religious person, calling them illogical is literally like mocking God.
But human behavior is often times called illogical and such behavior is derided. There are many ways to approach this dilemma. The shortest is to say that human behavior, and it's base level (interactions among particles) is still just natural phenomena. Since science is the observation of said phenomena, said interactions can be put in a logical framework (especially since interactions, albeit on a much less complex scale, of the same particles have already been put in a logical framework.) But this is not what the social sciences would like you to believe. No, there must be something special about humans that not only allows us to use the term illogical in the way that it was meant but also to create the distinction between natural and social sciences. This distinction necessitates the action of looking back at the progression and dismantling its simplicity. Logic -> Math -> Sciences becomes:
Please click to view better quality!
Get used to these types of charts.
Now I suppose the choice of using the term "Wild assumptions" is a bit harsh but that's the subject for an upcoming post, as are the significance of the arrows. But I don't want to spoil the surprise too much.
So, according to this chart, there was a nice flow of logic until we hit the social sciences. While you may think the observations of nature corrupted the logic of the natural sciences, remember that science is all about putting observations into a logical framework. This is true of the social sciences as well. Unfortunately it is very hard to find correlations in the observations for the social sciences. Therefore, "wild assumptions" must me made in order to give some weight to the subject. The answer to this is problem is that social sciences will slowly diminish. As we learn more about the human and brain, biology and more specifically neuroscience will replace any need we have for psychology. Therefore, any "illogical behavior" is capable of being put in a logical framework through neuroscience, and nothing can be illogical.
The problem with this approach is that it does not focus on the actual behavior we call illogical. It merely states that since human behavior is part of nature, it can and eventually will be put in a logical framework. But it does not answer the question of why it is called illogical in the first place. In order to answer this, I will look at two different situations of human behavior that might have a lot to do with logic. The first is through utility and the second is through discourse.
1) So let's say we have a person who really really likes money and wants to be rich and also really really hates meatloaf. She is given a choice of Box A and Box B. She is told that Box A contains $7.5 million and Box B contains a really bad meatloaf that smells horrible. Knowing this, she chooses Box B. Is this behavior illogical? The answer is no. Logic has nothing to do with preference. There is instead another term for this type of behavior, and that is irrational. There is an entire field that involves rational choice theory to explain decisions such as these. This theory is based on logic and does not claim any action to be illogical but only some actions to be irrational. Logic involves causality, so the truly illogical action here would be if that if the money was put in Box A and the meatloaf in Box B, the person would choose, say, Box B and inside it would be the money. Now this does not make logical sense, BUT, science would observe it, analyze it, and put it in a logical framework. Therefore, the utility problem is solved.
2) Now we have two people discussing a hot topic, say abortion. Person A is against abortion but he also likes to kill babies. From the first situation, we can say that this person's behavior is not illogical but irrational. So let's change it. Two people are arguing about tax policy. One advocates taxes on the rich and the other advocates no taxes. Let's say that as evidence for his position, the person in favor of taxes on the rich invokes a study that showed lower taxes on the rich benefits society. This study argues against his argument, yet he is the one who invokes it. This brings us to another logical problem, the contradiction, which arises from a break in causality. But this does not mean contradictions are illogical! For example, let's say the sun gets colder but the Earth gets hotter. Seemingly, this is a contradiction, but it is not illogical! Once again, the broken record says that science can put this in a logical framework. So let's look at why this person would invoke such a study. Perhaps he misinterpreted the study, in which case his actions are not illogical but instead wrong, or incorrect. But what if he didn't misinterpret the study and just thought that it would actually help his case. We can infer two things from this, either that there is something wrong with his brain and he just doesn't understand how things work or that there might actually be a way that this study helps his argument. Neither of these situations are illogical. Again, science can put both of these in a logical framework. We're not done talking about contradictions though. Why do they arise? Well, they often arise because of misinformation or disingenuous behavior. Neither of these are illogical either. If person A sees a Honda Accord and person B sees a Honda Civic, one of these people are either wrong or lying. This is not illogical. For it to be illogical, neither of these people would have to be lying or incorrect. That is, the car must have been both a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord. But what can we say about this? Yep, science and all that.
So the question remains of what we actually can and should call illogical? Well, for something to be illogical, it must not only not follow our current logical structure but also be something that should not have happened or something we could not even imagine happening. So what fits into this? I can only think of two things.
1. Time itself.
2. The creation of the universe.
Think about it.
