The failure of logic

A lot of people believe that the answers lie in rationality. As if we would solve all our problems if people just acted logically.

It ain't gonna happen though. There are a lot of reasons why. I want to focus on logic's inherent, internal limitations.

Other barriers to people making good rational/logical decisions exist--for example, access to good information, or the ability to effectively use information--but let's just ignore those for a moment. In fact, we could even assume that people do have access to whatever information they need, and they are able to effectively use the information they are given, too, and still we would see that logic isn't enough. Rationality is not enough.

Since David Hume, we know that the areas of absolute logical certainty are very small. Geometry and other mathematical endeavors can have logical certainty. But nothing based on empirical observation can be similarly certain.

For millennia, it has been recognized that logic is prone to errors where infinity is involved--paradoxes such as Zeno's of Achilles and the tortoise have been fascinating for a long time. Borges has a lovely little discussion of these paradoxes titled "Avatars of the Tortoise."

The most central paradox is rarely discussed: there is an infinite regression in proof: to prove something, you need preliminary assumptions. But how are those assumptions known? Empirical observation cannot provide that certain foundation. And if you logically prove the starting assumption, what assumptions are necessary to prove that, and how are they to be proved? Bertrand Russell discussed this paradox. And essentially dismisses it.

But the greatest failure, I believe, in logic is that it does not and cannot eliminate questions of value. For example, if I have to buy a bunch of greens, is red kale better than curly kale? OK, sure, there may be some nutritional difference, and that may mean that there is one that is logically better for a specific individual, but that's partly determined by circumstance. And that's not taking into account any factor related to hedonic issues. I use the word "hedonic" because it's technical and "hedonic issues" serves the technical context better than "things relating to pleasure." But, realistically, taste does matter: if you like curly kale better than red kale, then that happiness affects your biochemistry; it affects your behavior, etc.

Something more than logic is needed. Hilary Putnam says (I paraphrase): knowledge of value depends on knowledge of fact; and knowledge of fact depends on knowledge of value. You can't have one without the other. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Logic isn't enough on which to build personal behavior or social norms. Values are needed--for example whether competition is better than cooperation, or vice versa. So what values do you want?

Wouldn't it be great if the values guiding the logic were values of compassion and love?