Logical v Reasonable

Instagram Vancouver

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Blackburn defines

Logic:

Cited

'The general science of inference. Deductive logic, in which a conclusion follows from a set of premises, is distinguished from inductive logic, which studies the way in which premises may support a conclusion without entailing it. In deductive logic the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.' (221).

A former academic adviser of mine at Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, stated once (paraphrased) that many people use the terms 'logic' and 'logical' incorrectly.

Blackburn explains that 'The aim of logic is to make explicit the rules by which inference may be drawn, rather than to study the actual reasoning processes that people use, which may or may not conform to those rules. (221).

If I stated: 'I am a theist, I am an atheist', that is logically impossible and contradictory.

If I stated: 'I am a theist, I am a Hulk', that is logical, but not reasonable. It is not logically contradictory as I could hypothetically and theoretically be a Hulk, by an act of science or supernaturally, but the statement is not supported by premises as reasonable and sound (true). It is physically impossible (at present) that I am a Hulk, but it is not logically impossible.

Blackburn writes concerning 'reason' under the 'rationality' entry. (319-320).

Rationality:

'Pieces of behaviour, beliefs, arguments, policies and other exercises of the human mind may all be described as rational. To accept something as rational is to accept it as making sense, as appropriate.' (319).  It is aiming for the truth and the good. (319).

At times people state that something is 'logical' when in reality they should state that something is 'reasonable'. The reasonable will be logical, but the logical, not always reasonable.

If one is stating that something is true, the term 'reasonable' is usually the more accurate philosophical term than logical.