Challenging Logic's Formal/Informal Divide
Is 'Logic in the Wild' primarily about informal logic rather than logic itself? The answer is a definitive no – it's unequivocally about logic. In this book, I advocate the notion that logic is the guardian of coherence. I examine the ways in which logic maintains coherence in beliefs, arguments, and theories. This is crucial for exploring ideas and reconciling differing viewpoints by finding their common ground.
There are numerous standards that are utilised to maintain coherence. In legal contexts, these standards are shaped by the principle of reasonable doubt. In mathematics, a standard of consistency is paramount for the sake of generality, especially when seeking to establish foundations. Analytic philosophy, heavily influenced by mathematical methods, upholds standards that centre around validity. Theological discourse, meanwhile, accommodates doxastic ventures (or leaps of faith), allowing a greater margin for errir. In everyday life, the criteria for coherence vary significantly depending on the context, the stakes involved, or the urgency of finding practical solutions. This variety in standards underlines the universal role of logic in all these domains: to guard coherence.
As we look back to the turn of the 20th century, we observe that mathematicians began to dominate the field of logic, adapting it to meet their needs. This led to the establishment of a formal calculus that has since assumed a predominant role in the discipline. Consequently, logic has evolved into a tool primarily for ensuring consistency, adhering to standards of what I might term 'orthodox validity'. The challenge to this 'orthodox validity' and its expansion within non-classical logic is a compelling subject, which I plan to address in a future post.
My background in logic, though primarily philosophical, has been significantly shaped by mathematical training. This influence led me to view mathematical logic as the ideal, the gold standard of reasoning. In this context, mathematical logic, highly effective in its own applications, was considered a benchmark for other disciplines, although only in an approximate manner. From this viewpoint, informal logic is defined as anything not conforming to the formalism, symbolic manipulation, and mathematical dominance. I would suggest, more from anecdotal observations than empirical evidence, that formal logicians regard themselves as practitioners of 'real' logic. In contrast, those focusing on areas such as practical communication patterns or critical thinking are perceived as engaging in what might be termed 'in-formal' logic.
In 'Logic in the Wild', I argue that logic encompasses much more than the mathematical reasoning that was prevalent in the 20th century. Fundamentally, logic is the custodian of coherence. The method employed by 20th-century mathematicians, which involved guiding coherence in their domain through a focus on consistency, is merely one way to apply logic. This specific approach should not define the entire spectrum of logic, nor should it be the sole basis for distinguishing other coherence-maintaining methods as 'in-formal'. Consequently, 'Logic in the Wild' is not just a treatise on informal logic; it's about logic!
