Logic, Impartiality, and the Human Mind: Navigating Biases and Reflexes

Can we ever truly achieve impartiality? Is it possible for logic to be completely neutral? These questions provoke profound reflection on the nature of our thinking processes. To become impartial, one must grow up free from biases, prejudices, and partisanship. This means not only refraining from or correcting sources of impartiality but being fundamentally impartial at the core. Given our human nature, this seems an improbable goal.

Biases and prejudices are embedded in our psychology, influencing our daily thoughts, interactions, and even how we form relationships and communities. In "Logic in the Wild," I discuss the concept of mental reflexes, drawing an analogy to physical reflexes like the flinch response. Boxers, for example, can learn to reduce but never fully eliminate this reflex. Similarly, our mental reflexes are deeply ingrained.

Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky developed a theory around our psychological systems, labeling them as System 1 and System 2. System 1 is responsible for fast, unfiltered thinking, aiding in quick decision-making. System 2, on the other hand, is slower, geared towards problem-solving and deeper thought. Understanding and balancing these two systems is crucial, whether in situations requiring rapid decisions (like playing tennis) or those demanding careful consideration (such as deciding to propose to a partner).

The key isn't to suppress System 1 entirely; in fact, sometimes it's quite the opposite. For instance, quick thinking is essential when dodging an obstacle while cycling. We should embrace mental reflexes but not be enslaved by them. However, as I discuss in the book, even System 2 is fallible. Thinking slowly doesn't necessarily equate to thinking truthfully or coherently. Hence, I advocate for logic as a 'slower' system of thinking, System 3, one that not only circumvents mental reflexes but also addresses illogical patterns inherent in System 2.

Judges, perhaps, exemplify individuals who effectively utilize what could be termed Systems 2 and 3. They strive not to eliminate their biases and System 1 thinking but to ensure their decisions are justified independently of these influences. They are capable of ruling against their mental reflexes and instincts in such a manner that a third party could understand their decision-making process without any insight into the judge's personal biases. The goal, therefore, is not to eradicate biases but to act in ways that are informed by them only when necessary or appropriate.

Regarding neutrality, I propose a similar approach. Instead of striving for a logical mode of inquiry completely detached from content, logical praxis requires us to guard coherence in a way that is neutral with respect to content. It's essential to recognize, however, that logic itself is not entirely neutral. Logic is built upon fundamental assumptions, manifesting as rules of thought or laws about truth, that are intrinsic to its evaluative standards. These assumptions, akin to biases and mental reflexes, are elements we can't completely eliminate but can learn to navigate. Just as we acknowledge and work with our biases and reflexes, we must do the same with these logical underpinnings. This recognition doesn't undermine logic; rather, it enhances our understanding and application of it. Therefore, neutrality in logic isn't an absolutely inherent quality. Logic provides the means to guard coherence, aiming to achieve the appropriate level of neutrality in our space of inquiry.

What do you reckon?