Is There Such a Thing as Neutrality in Logic?
If logic provides a "neutral space of dialectical enquiry", but neutrality can vary with each space of enquiry, is there really such a thing as neutrality? Is neutrality something that allows degrees, that permits variation? An orthodox view, one dominant in the twentieth century, is that there’s only one logic; one logic to rule them all. That logic is universal and neutral. It is universal because it applies to everything, and it is neutral because it isn’t affected by content. When I talk about a neutral space of dialectical enquiry in Logic in the Wild, I’m inspired by this orthodox view. I’m inspired by it, but I’m not bound by it and ultimately, I come to reject it.
I reject it because I believe logic is much more than what twentieth-century mathematicians have reduced it to. I reject it because the standards of reasoning they've adopted are not suitable for all spaces of enquiry. I also reject the orthodox logic of the twentieth century because it fails to recognize coherence amidst the weird, the absurd, the inconsistent, or the paradoxical. The logic of the twentieth century is too intolerant to serve practical purposes across a wider range of applications.
Although I don’t discuss this in Logic in the Wild, I've defended logical nihilism in previous blog posts. Logical nihilism is the view that there are no universal laws of logic. This perspective directly challenges the idea that logic offers a neutral space for dialectical enquiry. What kind of neutrality are we referring to if there isn’t a universal logic to regulate neutrality, if there are no laws of logic at all? This raises doubts about the very possibility of a neutral space of dialectical enquiry. What does neutrality mean if there's no universal logic to govern it, if logic itself has no laws? This could imply the non-existence of a truly neutral logical space. So, what role does logic play? Is it merely to assess argument coherence, or does it still delineate practical boundaries for deliberation?
I maintain that neutrality is crucial for logic's application, yet it's a complex, multifaceted concept rather than a straightforward one. Neutrality must be negotiated within each space of enquiry, potentially evolving as discussions progress. The use of "neutral space" in my discussion might suggest a singularity in logical spaces of enquiry, a misunderstanding I hope to clarify here. Just as stating "flying provides a means of transportation" doesn't imply only one way to fly, or saying "a cat purrs when content" doesn't mean there's only one cat, so too does my reference to logic's provision of a neutral space not denote a singular mode of enquiry. Logic, in its practical role during deliberation (alongside guarding coherence), aims for neutrality that adapts to the context of each enquiry.
