Also, this entry just reinforces something that has driven me crazy for years now: BZPower members do not use the word "logic" correctly.
The common misconception is that logic tells truth from error. That it is the study of things that lead to it. This is incorrect.
If an argument is offered is offered as a justification of its conclusion, two questions arise. First, are the premises true? Second, are the premises properly related to the conclusion? If either question has a negative answer, the justification is unsatisfactory. It absolutely essential, however, to avoid confusing these two questions. In logic we are concerned with the second question only.
When an argument is subjected to logical analysis, the question of relevance is at issue. Logic deals with the relation between the premises and the conclusion, not with the truth of the premises.
Now, if I had thought about this a little more, it would have been evident, simply because we use logic to describe how stories should go - they should be logically consistent with themselves. For example, X character is this way, therefore he would do this in this situation. This is especially apparent with the Arena Method, but it is true of all forms of writing - we expect the next events of the story to be relevant to the characters of the story and the events that came before.
But reality check here: stories aren't real. They aren't true. At least, in terms of our world. For example, if I write:
The hexagon began walking to the other side of the road.
A car barreled toward the hexagon at 200 MPH while it was in the street.
The hexagon got hit by the car.
This is logically consistent, but every single one of these statements is false. The hexagon began walking to the other side of the road is false, because hexagons do not have legs and can't walk. The second statement is false because there are no hexagons in the street and cars don't go 200 MPH in the street - at least, not where I live. And the third statement is false because the first two are false. It did not happen.
But it's a perfectly good story.
* * *
Admittedly, in a debate this can get blurry, because if your opponent's argument is irrelevant to your argument, then it does not prove your statement false. For example:
Bionicle 2016 is one of the best decisions Lego has ever made.
Dude, that is so wrong. Tahu looks like an overdetailed supersonic chicken!
Now, obviously, the second statement (despite being hilarious) has no relation to the first statement. Producing overdetailed supersonic chicken Tahus might have been one of the best decisions Lego has ever made. Who knows?
But that doesn't prove the first statement true, either. That can only be done through business sales data and registering fan enthusiasm through things like polls (sort of; sales data is way better. But you get the drift.).
Clearly, there is something over and beyond the concept of logic in the human brain that allows us to discern truth from error. The author calls it justification - I much prefer the term discernment, since justification implies that you're trying to justify your lies to someone else. Despite popular belief, we do, in fact, have this ability, should we choose to use it - it's just that using the word logic is the wrong word.
With this in view, using the terms logic and emotion as psychological polar opposites is probably an error, because logic does not fully encompass our capacity for rational thought. We may have to go back to the old thinking vs. feeling.
But the other thing I note is that the book I quoted was published in 1963. It may simply be easier to evoke the "meanings of words change with time" rule and say that logic is the study of reality, the process that leads to truthfinding. Still, I think that this information may help clear up the old misunderstanding (which was unresolved), so I am submitting it for review.