To Be Logical Is to Be Logically Accurate
On the Bias planet, there is a science fiction TV show called Star Trek, and there is a character named Mr. Spock in it.
Ah-ha.
He isn't a pure Earthian, but is half Earthian and half Vulcan.
Vulcan?
There is a fictional planet named Vulcan.
Where is it?
I don't know where it is. . . . This is him. (Shows a picture of him)
. . . He has queerly shaped ears. What functions do those pointed tips carry out?
I don't know.
Without any function, such a shape wouldn't be selected in the process of evolution. The tips look to impede daily activities: don't they be frostbitten in the cold? When he washes his hair, don't his fingers get caught on the tips?
The planet, Vulcan, is a hot planet: you don't need to worry about his frostbite. As for washing hair, . . . anyway, you don't need to worry about it.
I was just curious.
Anyway, he is logical, and is also accurate.
How accurate?
For example, he demands accurate reports of time from his subordinates. When a subordinate says, "20 seconds to the impact," Mr. Spock demands it to be said like "19.541 seconds to the impact".
Subordinates? Impact?
Ah, Star Trek is a story of a spaceship, and Mr. Spock is its commander. The impact refers to a collision of a meteor to the spaceship, or something.
Oh, I understand.
Anyway, I thought, logical Mr. Spock's having to be also accurate is symbolic.
To make things clear, to be accurate isn't to insist on baseless high precision, but to correctly state the margin of error. So, '20 +- 1 seconds' is quite accurate if the estimate of the margin of error is correct. But I understand what you mean: it's symbolic.
To be logical is that one's execution of logical deduction is accurate. If one's logical deduction doesn't follow logical rules accurately, that's being illogical. Someone who can't think accurately can't think logically.
Logical rules themselves are matter-of-course things. Probably, most of the illogical people know the rules. They just can't or refuse to follow the rules accurately.
I read an Earthian document that teaches logic, which teaches the syllogism by a deduction like "Fish swim; trout are fish; so, trout swim."
. . . Such a formal deduction seems to be a thing that lessons on logic first and foremost have to warn learners against. What does 'swim' mean? If a fish is floated by a current without the fish moving its muscle a bit, is that swimming? How many hours a day should a fish swim for it be accredited to be something that swims? As an egg of a fish is also a fish, does the egg swim? Does a sick or dead fish swim? . . . Before we use logical rules, we have to state statements accurately. That deduction about fish lacks due accuracy. It's such lack of accuracy that is illogicalness.
I guess, such sloppy deduction generates a deduction like, "Women are weak; you are a woman; so, you are weak."
Teaching logical rules to illogical people doesn't make those people logical. They don't probably lack knowledge of logical rules, but they lack accuracy that doesn't allow sloppy statements or sloppy application of logical rules.
Being Logical Is an Absolute Necessity
Being logical is an absolute necessity to accurately understand things, right?
Yes. We can't know facts directly. We collect various pieces of information from different points of view, and build a hypotheses system that consistently explain facts. Logic is the glue that unites hypotheses together as a system. That's the reason why being logical is an absolute necessity to accurately understand things.
Ah, when we try to understand a box in front of us, we can't just understand it directly. We see it from an angle and from other angles; we touch and push the surfaces of it; we weight it on a scale; we shake it; and we may open it and look at the inside of it. Then we form an understanding of the box that consistently explains the whole of our information.
If we are allowed to be illogical, 'consistency' loses its meaning. For, what is 'consistency' then?
If we allow one illogicality, we lose the legitimacy to denounce any other illogicality, and any arbitrary statement can be thrown into the hypotheses system. Such a hypotheses system will be a nonsense. So, the method to form accurate understandings will crumble at its foundation.
Being Logical Isn't Enough
Illogical arguments are out of the question, but some logical arguments are also deplorable.
. . . How are they deplorable?
They start from the insistence of the absolute correctness of their premises. Conclusions of such arguments contradict the reality, but those arguments just ignore the reality. They claim, "If the conclusions contradict the reality, the reality is wrong."
The reality is the only thing that is absolutely correct, and there is no inconsistency in the reality. If there is some inconsistency somewhere, our understanding is incorrect. The inconsistency is a direct proof that the premises are incorrect.
We have to correctly understand what role we should allot to logic. We have to use logic to build and examine our hypotheses system, not to deduct conclusions from 'absolutely correct' premises.
We can't know such premises, at least not enough of them. We shouldn't be mistaken in the direction of thoughts: we don't reach correct conclusions by logical deductions, but we examine hypotheses by comparing logical conclusions with the reality.
