Why Logic? Beyond Individual Insight to Societal Unity

What is one big benefit that people could get from people learning logic?

A straightforward response might highlight personal benefits such as enhanced clarity in reasoning, coherence in beliefs, and improved communication efficacy. Envision communication as a strategic game where participants aim to persuade each other of their viewpoints; logic equips you with the strategies to avoid errors in thought organization and expression. While logic itself doesn’t directly bestow truth, it ensures the preservation of truth—assuming you commence with true beliefs, logical progression maintains that integrity. Logic empowers you to dissect and simplify complex views into their foundational truths. You can thus reason from your goals, starting with the view that you want to defend, and break it down into simpler components from which it follows and that are easier to support logically. With logic, you can build chains of reasoning that go from truths you know to truths you learn. In essence, logic is indispensable for truth-seekers: identifying a logical mistake negates the necessity to contest the proposition’s truth, as flawed reasoning destroys the argument itself, irrespective of content. These virtues of logic are particularly pronounced in debate contexts, where success is gauged by persuading the audience of your standpoint over that of your adversary, and extend to the political arena in policy communication and electoral strategies. This perspective underscores logic's individualistic benefits.

In Logic in the Wild, however, I articulate a richer response to the question, not targeted at benefits to individuals, but at benefits to society. The slogan I use is that logic provides a “neutral space of dialectical enquiry”-a space in which participants collaborate to explore the coherence in the various views on the same topic, and seek a common ground, seeking a stance that is neutral and aligns with all parties in the exchange of ideas. This approach transcends the contentious battle over the truth of beliefs, championing instead a constructive scrutiny of mutual interests and shared resolutions. Engaging neutrally in this dialectical space requires participants to eschew dogmatic defense of personal views in favor of a collaborative quest for logical common ground and collective understanding. This, in my view, represents logic’s most profound contribution: not in amplifying individual agendas but in bridging divides towards unified solutions. In a world infested by social media that polarises populations into extreme and untenable views, reinforced by “like buttons” that transform debates into voting procedures over opinions, logic is the beacon of hope that can redress constructive dialogue in society.