Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?

[Angra Mainyu]

How could they decide which logic is correct?! I have asked you for a justification that the definition of validity used in mathematical logic was correct, to no avail. There is no such justification. So, they may have arguments about which is correct, but none of them can support their respective claim.

They try to ascertain which logic is correct by thinking about it, considering different philosophical arguments, etc. It's the way debate about epistemology, metaethics, metaphysics, the philosophy of physics, etc., happen. And to some extent, about how pretty much every other philosophical disagreement happens, and even some scientific disagreements. As for my argumentation, that's a matter for the other thread you started. But I have not replied to that one because I do not want to engage in multiple debates simultaneously, at least not until I'm reasonably confident that the exchange will remain civil.

There is just one deductive logic. We all use the same. Whether in our linguistic utterances, our thoughts, in writing, colloquial or formal. What is not deductive logic is mathematical logic. What is funny is that mathematicians use deductive logic like everybody else and somewhat with more rigour, yet they keep up the fiction that mathematical logic is "correct". It's not. They know it's not but they keep pretending. One is reminded of the tremendous capability of human beings for dissembling. That's toeing the party line and nothing else.

Even if there is one single logic that encompasses the full extent of human language communication, that does not mean that every form of human communication uses the full logic. In particular, in mathematics, we do not use the causal meaning of the conditional - which is one of the but not the only meaning in colloquial language. As a result, the part of logic that applies to that sort of conditional will not be in play in mathematics.

Mathematical logic is deductive logic, of course. Your claims about pretending, etc., are simply false. I know plenty of mathematicians. I have not found a single one who is pretending and believes that what we're doing is logically corrrect. You simply are way wrong about the psychology of mathematicians.

No it's not. Human logic and mathematical logic are mutually contradictory.

That is not true.

Causality, if it exists at all, is a fixture of natural world. As such, there can't be any logical problem with causality.

Of course. I'm not remotely suggesting that there is. What I'm saying is that the use of the conditional to indicate causality is not present in mathematics. So, whatever the part of human logic that deals with that sort of conditional statements is, mathematical logic is not meant to capture it, and it's not failing for not capturing it. There is another use of the conditional in colloquial speech, which is also in use in mathematics. In the case of that conditional, classical mathematical logic captures our common sense logic.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your point is irrelevant. Logic does not depend on any formal system and does not depend on language. You are confusing the communicating of the message with the meaning conveyed. Logic is what makes us say what we say when we speak logically but 99.999% of the time we don't even verbalise the logical inferences we make. Indeed, we are not even aware we are making them because, essentially, they remain unconscious. Aristotle pointed at logic, and like most people you're still looking at his finger.

What depends on language is the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises. It's not present in people who do not even have an understanding of what a premise is, or what a conclusion is, etc., so in particular, it is not present in people who do not have language. This is not to say that when we are making logical inferences, we verbalize it. In fact, much of the logic we do, we do unconsciously. But we do have language. Without language, we can still see patterns, and make probabilistic assessments or moral judgments about things we represent intuitively 'in our heads' about the world. But we cannot even try to ascertain whether a conclusion necessarily follows from premises. That requires language.

Is there a possible human community in which people do not have language (of the sort relevant in this question), not due to malfunctioning, but just having devised one such language?
If the answer is 'yes', then it is not the case that the ability to ascertain whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises is a part of human nature.
Since there is not enough information to tell whether the answer is 'yes' (at least, I do not have enough information, but if you do, I would ask for relevant links), I reckon we do not have enough information to establish that the aforementioned capacity is a part of human nature.

Mathematical theorems are understood by mathematicians using their intuition mostly. Proofs are sketchy indications of the validity of the theorem meant for other mathematicians. They understand each other mostly without using formal logic. Mathematical logic is irrelevant except probably in the few cases where it is misleading.

The first part is true: Mathematical theorems are understood by mathematicians using their intuition mostly. But our intuition is properly captured by mathematical logic. No, we do not formalize most of the proofs in first-order language (though in some areas, they do), but we do use (intuitively!) the powerful inference kit of mathematical logic. Let me put it in another way: if mathematicians limited themselves to Aristotelian logic, mathematics would be vastly different from what it is. Indeed, Bomb#20 already gave a simple example of a valid inference that Aristotelian logic fails to capture, but it's easy with the predicate calculus. But in mathematics, there are inferences like that, but also far more complicated than that.

Also, as I have argued in the other thread, if you mathematical logic were 'wrong' in the sense of failing to capture human logic in the context of mathematics, it would be better than the 'right' logic - i.e., that which captures human logic -, in the context of mathematics. This, however, is a matter for the other thread, so I will refer you to my reply in that thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Indeed, Bomb#20 already gave a simple example of a valid inference that Aristotelian logic fails to capture, but it's easy with the predicate calculus.

You're making a wrong assumption about Aristotelian logic. I can see why Bomb#20's example is not conclusive. It is in fact very easy to see that Aristotelian logic can prove Bomb#20's example valid. You can't because of your wrong assumption.

Also, as I have argued in the other thread, if you mathematical logic were 'wrong' in the sense of failing to capture human logic in the context of mathematics, it would be better than the 'right' logic - i.e., that which captures human logic -, in the context of mathematics. This, however, is a matter for the other thread, so I will refer you to my reply in that thread.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I know of incorrect inferences and incorrect proofs accepted as valid in mathematical logic. That's definitely not better. Mathematicians have invented logical rules that do not represent how logic really works. However, being the formalists that they are, they follow, logically, their rules. But their rules being wrong, the results can only include invalid conclusions.

It is definitely baffling to me that the obvious facts that show mathematical logic is wrong don't seem to register with you or any mathematicians, and indeed with any philosopher. Well, it's just life but there are millions of mathematicians worldwide. What are these people doing? Futile question, I guess.

Anyway, thanks for going into the detail of your thinking. There's not much else to say. We just disagree.
EB

 

[ronburgundy]

Well, an innate capacity would imply that most people would be quite good at evaluating simple logical syllogisms and if/then conditionals. Yet, research shows that people are generally quite poor at deductive logic, with the majority of people getting some simple logic problems wrong. This is true if you give people abstract forms of arguments (If p, then q; Not q; therefore not p). Most people will incorrectly say this conclusion necessarily follows the premises and/or will generate that conclusion from the premises. People get better at it if you use real world concepts and relations in place of abstract tokens, but that only demonstrates that people are not using deductive logic to reason about the problems. Also, if you use real world content, people will be even worse if the logical validity of the conclusion contradicts their a priori beliefs about the conclusion. IOW, people generally cannot apply logical reasoning to arguments independent of their a priori agreement with the conclusion.

Of course, some people are better at logical reasoning than others, and that is partly predicted by measures of general cognitive ability but also by measures of thinking dispositions where some people are more prone to go with their "intuitions" and prior beliefs (aka biases) and others are more able to set their beliefs aside and evaluate what is implied by a set of given claims. The difference between ability and style is the difference between what one can do if they try versus what one is inclined to try to do.

In fact, more religiosity predicts greater logical errors due to a tendency toward a more intuitive less analytical cognitive style.

 

[DBT]

There seems to be a distinction to be made between inherent capacity and ability....the latter being a matter of education or training.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're making a wrong assumption about Aristotelian logic. I can see why Bomb#20's example is not conclusive. It is in fact very easy to see that Aristotelian logic can prove Bomb#20's example valid. You can't because of your wrong assumption.

If you want to show it's valid, please go ahead.
In any case, I do not need that example, so I will address the rest of your points (though very briefly, because I'm posting the details in the other thread).

Sorry, I don't buy that. I know of incorrect inferences and incorrect proofs accepted as valid in mathematical logic. That's definitely not better. Mathematicians have invented logical rules that do not represent how logic really works. However, being the formalists that they are, they follow, logically, their rules. But their rules being wrong, the results can only include invalid conclusions.

Well, if it were true that some CML-valid proofs (i.e., proofs valid under classical mathematical logic) are not valid, then it would be better of course to know that they're not valid. However, CML would still be better as a means of finding mathematical truth than human logic, and in the context of mathematics at least, we should eschew validity and instead go for CML-validity. The invalid conclusions you talk about would still be mathematical truths, obtained from other mathematical truths by a truth-preserving method (namely, CML). They would be invalid in the colloquial sense of the word 'valid', but then, that is a problem for validity, not for CML (and yes, it would still be a problem for CML if it's believed to match human logic when it does not; but then, the solution is to stop claiming that it matches human logic, but still keep the superior method).

It is definitely baffling to me that the obvious facts that show mathematical logic is wrong don't seem to register with you or any mathematicians, and indeed with any philosopher.

That is another matter. Of course I disagree with you, but the argument I'm making in this context is under the assumption that you are correct about that.
In other words, here I'm saying that if CML is wrong as you claim, then it is a tool superior to logic as a means of finding mathematical truths, and we should keep using it. But all of these are arguments for the other thread, and in fact I have given much more details over there, so I will not repeat more points here.

 

[ronburgundy]

There seems to be a distinction to be made between inherent capacity and ability....the latter being a matter of education or training.

Yeah, but if a "capacity" does not entail an actual ability unless it is developed, then it seems it is not an "inherent" capacity.

I said no to the OP, for the reason detailed in my post. Certainly humans have a capacity to develop the ability to reason logically, b/c that would only require a single person being able to reason logically .

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, an innate capacity would imply that most people would be quite good at evaluating simple logical syllogisms and if/then conditionals. Yet, research shows that people are generally quite poor at deductive logic, with the majority of people getting some simple logic problems wrong. This is true if you give people abstract forms of arguments (If p, then q; Not q; therefore not p). Most people will incorrectly say this conclusion necessarily follows the premises and/or will generate that conclusion from the premises. People get better at it if you use real world concepts and relations in place of abstract tokens, but that only demonstrates that people are not using deductive logic to reason about the problems. Also, if you use real world content, people will be even worse if the logical validity of the conclusion contradicts their a priori beliefs about the conclusion. IOW, people generally cannot apply logical reasoning to arguments independent of their a priori agreement with the conclusion.

Of course, some people are better at logical reasoning than others, and that is partly predicted by measures of general cognitive ability but also by measures of thinking dispositions where some people are more prone to go with their "intuitions" and prior beliefs (aka biases) and others are more able to set their beliefs aside and evaluate what is implied by a set of given claims. The difference between ability and style is the difference between what one can do if they try versus what one is inclined to try to do.

In fact, more religiosity predicts greater logical errors due to a tendency toward a more intuitive less analytical cognitive style.

I agree generally that most people are not very good at formal reasoning. However, most people are not very good at singing from a score either, yet most people can learn to sing. Most people are not very good at writing and reading, yet most people can talk and understand other people talking and most people can learn to read and write. I think any research on our logical capabilities would need to make that distinction.

By inherent capacity, I mean a natural capacity. We all display this capacity each time we understand what people mean from what they say. Our brain is wired to use rules and using any rule correctly is a logical capacity. We need first to learn the rules themselves, or rather our brain needs first to integrate the rule in its processing of the information but this is the result of learning. Definitions are rules. Learn a new word, say "diorite", and from this point you'll understand what anyone using this word will mean with it, or at least assume that's what he means. People can't speak a language unless they somehow learn it but I think we would all agree we have a natural linguistic capacity, whether it is derived from a more general capacity I don't know but we have that capacity. We all learn a language but we don't all learn formal logic, and indeed very few people do. Formal logic itself is just one of the many things we can do that require a logical capacity. Think of even being a racist. Being racist is basically having somehow memorised a rule saying all people of that ethnic group are cheats or murderer or whatever and then going on to apply this rule to any fellow of that ethnic group. Same for sexism and any discrimination. So, even being an idiot requires a logical capacity.

I would also agree that most people don't use formal logic to reason but that's really only because most people don't reason at all. Ask people why they do stuff and you'll see what I mean. Indeed, most of what we do we do it without reasoning about it first. We just do it. Reasoning is for "intellectuals". Indeed, most people dislike people who argue their views. But even intellectuals don't reason at all about most of what they do in life, including the stuff that can be very important. Reasoning is generally rather costly in terms of time and energy unless you're used to doing it and that's generally because it's part of your job. And you can only reason about stuff that has already been formalised. Logic itself is a good example of that.

I also agree that there are biases, essentially emotional ones. Once your committed to a particular belief, you will ignore logical arguments to the contrary. However, there's a good reason for that. Logic is garbage in, garbage out. Whatever the validity of the argument, we still don't know whether the conclusion is true simply because we don't know whether the premises are true. So, people are in fact correct to dismiss even valid arguments. And, most people don't know about the formal distinction between valid and sound, they just dismiss the argument wholesale, and again, that's the correct attitude to take. Logic isn't used for discovering the truth. Logic is used to believe the conclusion that follows from a prior belief. If I know your beliefs, I can move you to act logically in accordance with them by using a valid argument. If I know you believe in God and that God asks believers to help their neighbours, I can argue you should help your neighbour. But it won't work if you don't believe in God to begin with. And whether God exists or not is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what you believe is true.

Most people don't use formal logic but all use their inherent logical capacity. Suppose some people are talking about Obama. After ten minutes someone may say, "Well, politicians are just liars". And that's it. Whether you agree with this "rule" and whether you think Obama is himself a liar, indeed irrespective of whether you like or dislike Obama, you will understand what the guy actually didn't even spell out, namely that he meant that Obama is a liar. That's a logical inference and yet, although they will understand what the guy meant, no one present will need to think about it. They will just know what the guy meant without having to think about it. That's entirely intuitive and people don't learn formal logic. They're not even aware they made a logical inference. You yourself don't even understand, given what you say here, that you are making precisely this kind of inference all the time without having to think about it. So, we all have this inherent capacity because without it we could possibly even begin to understand each other.

So, intuition is not to blame. Indeed, we have people trained in formal logic being systematically wrong about whole classes of inference because the formal logic they learn is wrong. As of today, our best logic is our intuitive logic. The brain is a natural. You just need to learn to listen to it and make the distinction between the logical validity of your intuition and the assumptions you make without even realising it. If you're wrong, the likelihood is that some of your assumption are wrong.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There seems to be a distinction to be made between inherent capacity and ability....the latter being a matter of education or training.

Yeah, but if a "capacity" does not entail an actual ability unless it is developed, then it seems it is not an "inherent" capacity.

I said no to the OP, for the reason detailed in my post. Certainly humans have a capacity to develop the ability to reason logically, b/c that would only require a single person being able to reason logically .

So a child that doesn't develop a language because he has nobody to talk to him has no inherent linguistic capacity? Then nobody has any linguistic capacity and then how come we all speak some language? You think you don't have an inherent linguistic capacity?
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There seems to be a distinction to be made between inherent capacity and ability....the latter being a matter of education or training.

Yeah, but if a "capacity" does not entail an actual ability unless it is developed, then it seems it is not an "inherent" capacity.

I said no to the OP, for the reason detailed in my post. Certainly humans have a capacity to develop the ability to reason logically, b/c that would only require a single person being able to reason logically .

So a child that doesn't develop a language because he has nobody to talk to him has no inherent linguistic capacity? Then nobody has any linguistic capacity and then how come we all speak some language? You think you don't have an inherent linguistic capacity?
EB

You said earlier:

We can be incapacitated. It's actually not true that humans have two legs and one nose because some people miss those. Do the British people speak English? Well, no, because not when they're in deep sleep or in drunken stupor. We cannot vote in elections since many people literally can't decide who to vote for.

Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.

I guess whatever capacity we have as individual human beings is best explained by the fact that human beings have inherent capacities due to their nature. I wouldn't want to have to explain the fact that we can communicate with each other using sophisticated languages by leaving our DNA out of the picture.

Indeed. But on the other hand, say, a capacity to swim is not part of our nature by that standard. Indeed, if a human lives in a mostly deserted area and never finds a body of water where she could swim, she will not learn how to swim, but very much unlike the human who lacks one or two legs, there is no malfunctioning in the person that does not know how to swim.
In fact, historically one can find entire communities of humans who cannot swim, with no malfunctioning at all. Of course, the same cannot be said about legs.

What about language?
I do not know. I do not think anyone knows. I already explained why that matters when it comes to the capacity of ascertaining whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises.

Still, that is a side issue. Even if it's not an inherent capacity, it may well be (and it's quite probable, I'd say) that there is only one human logic in colloquial languages - at least, for humans who happen to have that capacity, even if not inherently. This is why I think the question about an inherent capacity is not the right one for the intended task.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So a child that doesn't develop a language because he has nobody to talk to him has no inherent linguistic capacity? Then nobody has any linguistic capacity and then how come we all speak some language? You think you don't have an inherent linguistic capacity?
EB

You said earlier:

We can be incapacitated. It's actually not true that humans have two legs and one nose because some people miss those. Do the British people speak English? Well, no, because not when they're in deep sleep or in drunken stupor. We cannot vote in elections since many people literally can't decide who to vote for.

Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.

I guess whatever capacity we have as individual human beings is best explained by the fact that human beings have inherent capacities due to their nature. I wouldn't want to have to explain the fact that we can communicate with each other using sophisticated languages by leaving our DNA out of the picture.

Indeed. But on the other hand, say, a capacity to swim is not part of our nature by that standard. Indeed, if a human lives in a mostly deserted area and never finds a body of water where she could swim, she will not learn how to swim, but very much unlike the human who lacks one or two legs, there is no malfunctioning in the person that does not know how to swim.
In fact, historically one can find entire communities of humans who cannot swim, with no malfunctioning at all. Of course, the same cannot be said about legs.

I disagree. Like language and logic, and whatever else people do without even thinking about it, we know humans have an inherent capability from the fact that any human put in a situation where he is motivated to develop the relevant skill will develop this skill. Swimming is one such capability. Of course there's no one gene that controls that capability and maybe all these capabilities issue from a unique, more general one or from a small set of more general ones. But we still have these capabilities and they are entirely natural. The fact that we can teach people how to do it is irrelevant. People will develop the relevant skill whenever properly motivated, be it through teaching or through interaction with their environment. A guy in love will learn to swim on the spot (the idiot). It's not logically coherent to claim what we can do we can do it because we are taught. Who taught the teacher? Turtles all the way down? You think there has been a Prime Teacher, perhaps? And again, even for language, without interaction with an environment of other human beings, people don't speak. However, deaf and mute kids will develop on their own a language to communicate with each other (at least some have been observed doing it).
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, that is a side issue. Even if it's not an inherent capacity, it may well be (and it's quite probable, I'd say) that there is only one human logic in colloquial languages - at least, for humans who happen to have that capacity, even if not inherently. This is why I think the question about an inherent capacity is not the right one for the intended task.

Of course, it's the right question. The idea that logic is an inherent capacity explains very economically why we all seem to accept the validity of Aristotle's syllogisms or of the Modus Ponens. Well, tell me if you disagree with the validity of the Modus Ponens. And remember that whatever idea is proposed, you will usually find more than plenty of people to vehemently disagree with it. I found examples of thinkers, e.g. Descartes, criticising deductive logic on the ground that it would be useless. But I haven't found any disagreement with Aristotle's syllogistic (outside the remarkably myopic critique that it can't prove some inferences mathematical logic can prove).

The point is in fact rather crucial. If logic is a capability of neuronal systems generally, as I think it is, then, as I often say, it's been made adequate to its object by 525 million years of natural selection. That's an enormously lot more than what mathematical logic could boast: a paltry 170 years of existence, virtually no selective pressure, as evidenced by the fact that there is a motley collection of purported logical methods without any criterion to tell which is correct. Also, it's been thought up by a small bunch of mathematicians, some of them brilliant, no doubt, but without them using the adequate scientific method to investigate. Tell Steve mathematical logic is pure metaphysics, he'll bite. So, the point is crucial. It's also crucial in that it implies that logic predates any formal language by millions of years. It also means that we can trust our logical intuitions (I do and it works) more than any formal method, as the case of mathematical logic abundantly demonstrates. The only limit to our logic seems to be complexity. Logic would work in principle even for very, very complex problems but it seems clear our brain is limited in the degree of complexity it can deal with, or at least this is what suggests the rather short list of logical laws people have been able to discover beginning with Aristotle. Which should motivate scientifically-minded people to search for a proper formal method, although I'm not sure our current computers would do much better in terms of the degree of complexity they would be able resolve in the event. It may well be the case that logic is really much, much more complex than mathematicians currently believe. But at least we should try and I believe it's a more urgent and useful quest than a lot of what science does at the moment. This is a disgrace that so many intellectuals spend their working hours buggering flies, as we colourfully say in French.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I disagree. Like language and logic, and whatever else people do without even thinking about it, we know humans have an inherent capability from the fact that any human put in a situation where he is motivated to develop the relevant skill will develop this skill. Swimming is one such capability.

Remember, you said earlier:

(Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)

Certainly, swimming is not an inherent capacity, because it does depend on formal or informal language. Is the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises one of those inherent capacities?
I do not know, and I do not believe anyone does. Certainly, language is required. But if it is possible for a human community to exist without language (of the sort that is relevant here, with premises etc., not just basic communication calls) and without any malfunctioning, then it is not an inherent capacity, either. Yet, it is unknown whether that is possible.

Of course there's no one gene that controls that capability and maybe all these capabilities issue from a unique, more general one or from a small set of more general ones. But we still have these capabilities and they are entirely natural. The fact that we can teach people how to do it is irrelevant. People will develop the relevant skill whenever properly motivated, be it through teaching or through interaction with their environment.

Sure, but that is not independent on formal or informal learning.

Of course, here's a problem for your definition of "inherent", because you say that

Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature

That conflicts with the other part.

A guy in love will learn to swim on the spot (the idiot). It's not logically coherent to claim what we can do we can do it because we are taught. Who taught the teacher? Turtles all the way down? You think there has been a Prime Teacher, perhaps?

Of course, people do not learn (for example) grammar because they're taught. But that does not mean making grammatically correct statements does not depend on formal or informal learning. It does not depend on formal or informal teaching. But surely, that is something that people learn. And it's not part of human nature if there can be humans without it and with no malfunctioning.

And again, even for language, without interaction with an environment of other human beings, people don't speak. However, deaf and mute kids will develop on their own a language to communicate with each other (at least some have been observed doing it).

The question of whether humans can live with no (relevantly complex) language is still open, as far as I know. But if you think that there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, please present your evidence.

Of course, it's the right question. The idea that logic is an inherent capacity explains very economically why we all seem to accept the validity of Aristotle's syllogisms or of the Modus Ponens.

No, that's not true. It might be (for instance) that it's part of human nature that if humans have a language, they also develop this capacity, whereas it's not part of human nature that they develop it (because they might not develop language).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Remember, you said earlier:

(Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)

Certainly, swimming is not an inherent capacity, because it does depend on formal or informal language. Is the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises one of those inherent capacities?
I do not know, and I do not believe anyone does. Certainly, language is required. But if it is possible for a human community to exist without language (of the sort that is relevant here, with premises etc., not just basic communication calls) and without any malfunctioning, then it is not an inherent capacity, either. Yet, it is unknown whether that is possible.

You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.

But that's not in line with some of your other claims.

First, let us begin with the "nature" claims. Now, humans or pre-humans millions of years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire. Does that show that humans have an inherent capacity to make fire? But when you replied to rousseau here, you said:

It's actually not true that humans have two legs and one nose because some people miss those. Do the British people speak English? Well, no, because not when they're in deep sleep or in drunken stupor. We cannot vote in elections since many people literally can't decide who to vote for.

Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.

But of course, nothing malfunctions in a human who does not know how to make fire. So, it seems humans do not have an inherent capacity to make fire, even though they presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire.

Second, you said earlier

(Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)

Now you say:

You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.

Well, then, assuming that humans have an inherent capacity to develop and speak a language, similarly you get at best (ignoring the previous part about human nature, that is) that humans have an inherent capacity to develop a system of logic, and learn whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises according to that system. That, however, does not give you that all normally functioning humans will develop the same system of logic. Now, it is very plausible that they will in colloquial languages (not in formal languages), but still, that only gives you that humans have an inherent capacity to learn to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (much like they have an inherent capacity to learn a language), rather than having an inherent capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (just as the inherent capacity to develop and/or learn a language is not the same as the inherent capacity to speak a particular language).

In any event, this is not the right question, for the reasons I've explained.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But that's not in line with some of your other claims.

First, let us begin with the "nature" claims. Now, humans or pre-humans millions of years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire. Does that show that humans have an inherent capacity to make fire? But when you replied to rousseau here, you said:


But of course, nothing malfunctions in a human who does not know how to make fire. So, it seems humans do not have an inherent capacity to make fire, even though they presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire.

That people have a natural capability doesn't mean that they will necessarily use it. Like for swimming, opportunity is crucial. People don't waste their time and energy doing everything they are naturally capable of doing. Humans all have the naturally capability of making a fire just as they have the capability of speaking a language. Yes, very few people could make a fire on the spot without the help of a match. However, many would be able to learn by themselves how to do it, given enough time to learn and assuming they are properly motivated since it is a hard job.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Second, you said earlier

(Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)

Now you say:

You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.

Well, then, assuming that humans have an inherent capacity to develop and speak a language, similarly you get at best (ignoring the previous part about human nature, that is) that humans have an inherent capacity to develop a system of logic, and learn whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises according to that system. That, however, does not give you that all normally functioning humans will develop the same system of logic. Now, it is very plausible that they will in colloquial languages (not in formal languages), but still, that only gives you that humans have an inherent capacity to learn to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (much like they have an inherent capacity to learn a language), rather than having an inherent capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (just as the inherent capacity to develop and/or learn a language is not the same as the inherent capacity to speak a particular language).

In any event, this is not the right question, for the reasons I've explained.

Sure, I guess this shows we need a proper scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. For now, you can certainly deny the evidence.

We're wasting our time here.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That people have a natural capability doesn't mean that they will necessarily use it. Like for swimming, opportunity is crucial. People don't waste their time and energy doing everything they are naturally capable of doing. Humans all have the naturally capability of making a fire just as they have the capability of speaking a language. Yes, very few people could make a fire on the spot without the help of a match. However, many would be able to learn by themselves how to do it, given enough time to learn and assuming they are properly motivated since it is a hard job.

People do not have a natural capacity for making a fire. A person who does not know how to make a fire is not for that reason ill, or in any way malfunctioning. At most, humans have a natural capacity for learning how to make a fire (not a specific capacity, though, but the result of more general capacities). And similarly, humans have a natural capacity for learning how to swim. The capacity to tell whether a statement follows necessarily from premises is not the same as the capacity for learning how to tell that.

Sure, I guess this shows we need a proper scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. For now, you can certainly deny the evidence.

I do not deny any evidence. I show that some of your claims are unwarranted. Then, as usual, you grossly misrepresent my words.

We're wasting our time here.

Maybe you are. My goals are not the same as yours.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you to people who cast a vote, either way. The result doesn't seem surprising to me but it goes apparently against the prevailing view among the people who work on this, although "prevailing" means just that and nothing more.

Personally, I'm in no doubt we have a natural capability. It is apparent obviously in the fact that, starting with Aristotle, we have developed a formal logic, very limited and not very useful but it's there, it's an objective fact. The crucial aspect of Aristotle's logic is that it is universal. Very nearly all logicians during 2,500 years have agreed with Aristotle's formal logic. Compare with the polyphony of languages, the diversity of cooking throughout the world, to get an idea of the implication of that. Compare also with the fact that all humans know to eat with their first breath and indeed know to breathe to begin with.

Understanding what people say requires understanding of what they don't say and therefore the ability to infer successfully what they mean, and this requires logic. Not formal logic. It requires logic, a capability to infer meaning from what is said and context. We do it, all the time, without even blinking an eye, without even being aware that we're doing it. It's not taught and yet we learn to do it because we have the capacity to begin with. Try to have a conversation with a computer to see the difference. Even kids do it and do it smartly. So while we don't have any innate formal logic, we have the capacity to develop one (and indeed several). But formal logic is the most conspicuous effect. Logic is a very discrete capacity, like indeed many capacities we have that we don't even realise that we have. It took Aristotle to notice and talk about it. But even without Aristotle, all humans have this capacity and they use it without even noticing that they are using it. This is apparent in the fact that all peoples around the world have a language and communicate using abstract ideas. You don't discuss abstract ideas without a logical capacity and we all do it, all humans do it, and we all understand what people say as well as do by inferring their motivation even though we can't read their mind (Trump comes to mind, here).

Another way to notice your logical capacity is to pay attention to your logical intuitions, i.e. when your brain tells you what is the implication. You know it's an intuition because of the strength of the message and because you don't have to think to get the message. It comes unprompted, just like visual percepts, memory, pain, fear. It's your brain sending you messages. Pay attention or not, it's your life.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And I recently was able to show that the distinction between attributive and referential uses proved people have an inherent logical capability.

This is especially conclusive since the distinction is barely understood as the disagreement between Russell, Strawson and Donnellan, not to mention Kripke, showed. Yet, people's brain can select the correct interpretation between the two uses, and since most people don't understand the distinction, in fact most people don't even know of it, the brain can select the proper interpretation without people having themselves (consciously) to think about it. And you still have ignoramuses who will insist there's no inherent logical capacity. Whoa. That which I ignore, I can deny confidently, especially if I am a guy who knows a lot.
EB