The current fascination with reason, logic et al which runs in many strains of philosophy like Libertarianism, Objectivism et al – is in many ways coming full circle back to square one. I think it sprang up in retaliation to post-modern subjectivism which dictated truth is relative, ethics are relative, everything is relative (maybe it originated in West Virginia where apparently everyone is also a relative).
But subjectivism was itself a reaction, or rather a culimination of a phase of realism which wanted to subject everything to the rigors of reason and logic. Now, logic and deduction can only get us so far. As an earlier post argued, it is induction which is our most powerful tool.
For example, we cannot really deduce with certainty whether the world we see is real or whether one is actually a brain/system in a jar, in a lab of a far advanced civilization. This then dictates that the only truth is the existence of these signals that our brain/system seems to be receiving.
But we can induce, and prefer to move on. That is why I am a bit wary of the over-reliance on deductive logic. Pragmatism for example, involves taking steps which are not completely logical – some things are not “completely” understood,
and hence in the backdrop of limited knowledge some “insightful” steps
are better than logical steps which derive from the limited knowledge.
I have many questions –
Does “reason” imply only deductive logic? Does insight imply only an inductive component – a seemingly supra-logical selection amongst potentially infinite alternatives? Regardless of what I tried to define above, is “insight” orthogonal to “reason”?
It is truly wonderful how the interplay of reason and insight has evolved
and brought us to where we are. A mathematical codification and formalization of reason and insight and their interplay is, I think, fairly essential, and is lacking in current philosophies. Recent developments in artifical intelligence and cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are quite heartening in that respect.
I agree with your post in many respect. In deductive logic the conclusion does not add any new information. All the knowledge is there in the premises themselves. Most of the sciences today use induction to settle on certain premises of various theories. Thus, the premises of theories are nothing but a good summary of our experiences (and experimental facts). Using the theories as our tool we can then predict what will happen under various condition (including the conditions that we haven’t encountered yet).
I don’t see how we have any other choice than the above method.