Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:
>Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...
>> There is also a virtue to it. We use these ambiguities to think round
>> corners in situations where logic would lead one either to the wrong
>> conclusion or a sterile dead end. Were language purely logical, that
>> dream of logicians for a language so pure and logical that it would be
>> impossible to form and invalid argument in it, then our language would
>> be seriosuly restricted in its power as a cognitive tool. The
>> vagueness and ambiguity of language is a powerful tool (allied to its
>> underlying logic) which is responsible for the very considerable
>> linguistic augmentation of human mental powers over those of our dumb
>> fellow creatures.
>A fascinating and bizarre take on life (Especially for an informatics
>man!). I would have said that the ambiguity allows for beauty in the
>form of poetry, or the cutting double-edged speeches often made. Given
>that so much of "pure thought" comes down to logic, it seems strange to
>suggest that a logical language could lead to the "wrong conclusion".
>Surely that would suggest a failure in either the logic, or the
>language, not the fact that the language was logical!
No, what it is usually due to is incorrect assumptions. The problem
that thinking has to grapple with is that we are often mistaken about
what is going on. Logic is wonderful when we know exactly what is
going on, as in mathematics, or any branch of science in which we
already know enough to be able to use mathematical models. Essentially
the problem is "what do you do next when you're stuck?" The
mathematician Polya has written an excellent book about what
mathematicians do when they're stuck, i.e., logic has failed. A great
deal of human thinking, and a great deal of scientific hypothesising,
is about what you do next when you're stuck, when logic has failed
you.
Another problem is what you do when logic is too successful, i.e.,
there are dozens of logical implications leading to hundreds more, and
so on. That's the problem that arises when playing chess, for
example. Nobody (or machine) can afford to think that perfectly
logical and predictable game through to the end.
One useful human response to getting impaled either by the sterility or
the excessive fruitfulness of logic, is to brainstorm, an essentially
illogical process guided by chance, analogy, intuition, rhyme, error,
guessing, etc.. The point is that it works, as has been shown by the
success of artificial intelligence techniques based on these illogical
methods of escaping from the problems that arise when people who do
not know everything try to be too logical about what they think they
know.
I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then philosophers wouldn't
have had to invent science
--
Chris Malcolm
[email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]