Bridging the Gap: How Logic Connects Specialized Academia and Everyday Reasoning
How significant do you think the gap is between everyday reasoning and a strictly formal system?
Perhaps the real question is whether such a gap truly exists, given that logic is universally applicable. "Logic in the Wild" demonstrates this through numerous examples and applications, showing that the same patterns of reasoning found in philosophy, theology, mathematics, and science are also present in our daily lives. In this sense, logic bridges the gap between specialized academic knowledge and everyday reasoning. Once you learn to recognize coherence and patterns in reasoning, you’ll discover that much of what happens in specialized fields simply adapts these familiar strategies to new content. You might even find yourself engaging with disciplines you previously thought were completely out of reach.
However, when examining the practice of specialized logic, there indeed appears to be a vast chasm separating it from everyday life. As a trained logician who has studied at prestigious institutions and published in top logic journals, I still encounter papers in mathematical logic so filled with acronyms and deep theories that engaging with them feels like it would require an entirely new PhD. This isn't unusual in itself. Consider tennis, a sport I'm passionate about. According to a survey, around 70% of amateur tennis players believe they could win a game against professional players. In reality, an amateur like myself would be fortunate to score a point, perhaps from a pro's double fault or through a lucky, unreturnable shot. The gap between players like Federer or Alcaraz and everyday players is profound.
Yet, where I think there may be a more significant issue with the logical gap is in how mathematicians have dominated the field, creating a detachment not just from everyday reasoning but also from the intellectual curiosity about reasoning among educated non-academics who enjoy more accessible academic writing and popular science. I’m generalizing here, and there are certainly exceptions, but the trend shows that philosophers, particularly logicians, have not engaged the general public as effectively as scientists like Einstein, Hawking, or Neil deGrasse Tyson, who have authored popular science books and filled stadiums with their presentations.
When it comes to teaching the fundamentals of logic, the most that top logicians have managed is to produce textbooks for introductory university courses in symbolic logic. The real gap, as I see it, lies in public engagement and accessibility. This is the gap I aim to address through my current work, making logic both relevant and applicable to a broader audience.
