Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Logic and Neutrality

The author of the article Logic and Neutrality states in his article that the concept that logic is a neutral umpire is totally wrong. He states that logic itself can be a debating point for philosophers, and that logic have and continues to help us solve philosophical questions. I agree with the author of the article in that logic can help us solve questions, but I think logic is not something that can be argued. I find logic to be a fact; you cannot argue a fact, for facts are something that cannot be changed unless our perception of the fact was wrong in the first place. Unless our view of logic is wrong, I do not think logic can be arguable.

The power of logic is a chain of logical reasoning made by connecting a few simple axioms of logic. by simple using logic, it can solve seemingly unanswerable questions, and it proves that logic is not a neutral umpire.

Logic is not a neutral umpire because it can and does solve questions. It is not a middle man that tells us it is neither A nor B. By using logic, we can find answers by removing the answers that are illogical. Therefore, logic cannot be neutral because it will give us answers.

The author challenges the reader at the end of the article, asking, us to see the close similarities between logic and science, and to try to find a distinctive identity of logic.

According to the author, logic is not just a controversy-free zone, and that if restricted to uncontroversial principles, nothing would be left. No principal, even logic, is above challenge. Logic can give us infinite answers or no answers, and the strength of logic is what makes it similar to science.

The author of the article views science like philosophy. He believes everything can be debated on it’s meaning, and that nothing is controversy-free. He seems to note that science is so strong that it is obvious when there’s a flaw, since a flaw can be seen with a simple counter example.



2 Responses to Logic and Neutrality

  1. brie says:

    The author says logic does not supply any information of its own, it only rules out inconsistencies. Logic is uninformative meaning it doesn’t supply any information and I agree logic just directs us in the proper direction; it helps extract and handle non-logical information. Logic doesn’t supply it guides. He describes logic as building blocks or steps in the guidance of our theories. This does align with my metaphor for what is philosophy as being a snowflake because I described the snowflake starting off and building up snow as it falls just like logic guides the philosopher’s thoughts in the correct way and help build onto your theories. This leads to why logic isn’t a neutral umpire, Timothy states that logic doesn’t sit in the fuzzy middle it choses a side to be on for example something either “is the case or isn’t”. Logic has to pick a side like it’s a player in the game. The umpire in baseball has to make the call of either out or safe there is no neutral call.
    To summarize one of Williamson “challenges” to logic and being basically the only one I understood well was when he said logic is the law of excluded middle, meaning logic is either yes or no. But many philosophers have stated something called fuzzy logic, this was adopted for boarder line cases ei; when it’s raining ever so slightly but it’s not considered fully raining this is fuzzy logic because its in between. This law also fails to predict with certainty future events or circumstances that could be possible.

  2. amy salvador says:

    1. He is saying that logic is extending our own knowledge by putting together smaller pieces to build an idea or theory. The author describes logic as being a way to “…extend our knowledge by deducing logical consequences that we already know.” In saying this he is explaining the cognitive value of logic in people. This is further explained with an analogy of murder with two suspects. When one suspect is proven innocent then we can deduce using logic that the other must be guilty. Another way that he explains the relevancy of logic is by stating that logic “… helps us recognize our mistakes, when our beliefs turn out to contain inconsistencies.” The analogy used for this is that if you are given 3 statements and one of them is contradictory to the others then one of the three statements must be false, although logic does not conclude which one. I think that his reading of logic aligns with what I thought logic was at the beginning of the year. It does not, however, match what I thought philosophy was when I first started because I thought it would be more about the unknown and controversial. It now makes sense that we would need logic in order to follow long chains of reasoning in order to get to real understanding of the issues discussed.

    3. He is saying that logic is not a neutral other party, you are either on one side saying yes or on the other saying no. In the game of baseball logic is not the neutral party that everyone has common ground with, logic is the ball that people play with in order to win the game or argument. I think he is right in that logic can be twisted and used for your own game with things such as the factual correctness of the argument.

    5. The author states similarities between logic and science in many ways. He says that philosophy is like science in that the principles of logic can be debated, just like the principles of science can be. He highlights the similarities between “quantum logic” and quantum mechanics. The similarity is that standard logic had the distributive law and so does quantum mechanics. Standard logic is also like science in that no principle is above being challenged and tested. Logic is full of controversy and needs to be debates just like how everything is science.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *