Finding Neutrality in Logic's Dialectical Enquiry
In Logic in the Wild, I discuss the notion of logic providing a “neutral space of dialectical enquiry”. By neutrality, I mean a focus on coherence rather than cogency—on logic instead of truth. This approach refrains from prioritizing any content over another. For example, when deliberating on human origins, excluding creationist arguments for solely scientific ones disrupts neutrality, as does mandating a divine explanation alongside scientific discussions. Logic itself does not resolve the existence of God or the exclusion of divinity by scientific methods. This goes beyond the purview of logic, going into content-specific debates.
In Logic in the Wild, I emphasise logic as creating a "neutral space of dialectical enquiry," where the focus is on coherence rather than cogency, meaning the logical structure takes precedence over the pursuit of truth. This seeks to ensure no particular content is favored over another. For instance, if a discussion on human origins excludes creationist viewpoints solely for scientific evidence, or conversely, necessitates divine explanation alongside scientific theories, then the space ceases to be neutral. Logic, in my exploration, does not settle debates about the existence of God or the exclusion of such notions by science, as these discussions extend beyond logic's scope into content-specific arguments. One might wonder, "Why not consider truth?" To this, I offer several practical responses in the book, illustrating the benefits of shifting deliberation within communities from the content of beliefs to their logical integrity.
However, is it possible for an inquiry to remain truly neutral? And can such neutrality extend to the standards of coherence recognized in deliberation? The spectrum of reasoning standards—from mathematical validity and legal "beyond reasonable doubt" to probabilistic reasoning—complicates this neutrality. If only valid reasoning is permissible, debates on topics like creationism versus evolution struggle to commence, as neither side can conclusively "prove" their stance. Conversely, overly lenient standards hinder progress by allowing both sides to construct seemingly coherent arguments.
Identifying the optimal balance for deliberation demands a careful navigation between dogmatic insistence and gullible acceptance. It involves finding a middle ground that promotes meaningful discourse without sacrificing the integrity of logical exploration, all the while maintaining neutrality.
