Logic is very useful to science, mathematics, and other systems needing rules. We use it everyday in its most simplest form.

However no matter how well versed in logic you are, you will never be able to win an argument or prove a point unless the other person or entity agrees to the same rules of logic as you. This is a failure of logic.

Have you ever had an argument with someone who in your opinion was using faulty logic, yet could not convince them because they didn't agree on the rules?

This problem could also stem from a different interpretation of the rules of logic. This is seen wideley in the courts of law, and most recently in the Supreme Courts decision over the American Presidential Election , which was split over the differences in how Republicans and Democrats interpret the Constitution.

This is not to suggest that logic is not useful, because it is more useful than not, but it also is not totally infallible. This is just a reflection of the creators of logic: humans, who are certainly not perfect in any or anything they do

A suggested answer to this problem (one I personally disagree with) is to use a basic system of fuzzy logic to accelerate the process of coming to an agreement. The idea behind this method was that you would admit that you probably were't 100% correct, and so give your arguments a value of (0.95) true, and the oppositions an appropriate value. Then, working through slowly and calmly, re-assign values as the conversation goes on (so that both sides can hear the progress numerically), until, probably, both sides are at 0.5:0.5, by which time, I'd imagine, an agreement would have been reached.

This solution to one of the problems with logic would probably only be prevalent among mathematicians. Most people wouldn't admit that it's sometimes easier with numbers.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.