Logic is NOT persuasive

I fail to see how this is an argument against logic. We are not compassionate, selfless beings either, but we aspire to be. It is the same with logic; ignorance is easier than reason, but we elevate ourselves and others by aspiring to rise above our ignorance. Reason is the road out of ignorance, and logic is the vehicle that carries us along that road.

That sound logical arguments aren’t convincing is a failing of neither logic nor the logician, but of the audience.

That said, I don’t see how and where you’re drawing the line between logical arguments and emotional ones in your ‘I love my kids’ example. ‘I take them to day care every day.’ ‘I hug them and kiss them all the time.’ ‘I feel this pit in my stomache every time they go away, and an emptiness inside until they return.’ Yes, some of those assertions are about emotions and emotional reactions, but the argument that underlies making them is still logical. There’s an implied ‘People who do X are loving parents. I do X. Therefor I’m loving parent.’ argument built into the scenario.

Earlier I referred to Damasio’s Descartes Error. I will admit that a certain portion of how I see reason was reshaped in the process. A very short summary would be that he is a neuroscientist who works with people who have had various brain trauma, and in the process has found that our brain relies on feeling a lot more than people would care to think. Logic, itself, seems to rely on emotion giving things a value.

Ok, to your question more specifically, some see reason as better and better the more logical it is. In places, I completely agree. (Atheist, pro-evolution, etc - I am a materialist, naturalist, and empiricist.) I do, however, see reason as having more of an emotional component that informs our decisions.

A short demo:
a+b=c. In personal life I tend to think in these terms. c is the desired outcome. a is another situation, b is me. In this instance let’s say that one of my kids just is not listening and is having a problem respecting the rules. c would then be for them to understand that in grownupworld that behavior doesn’t work well. a is their current thinking and degree of understanding of the situation. b is what I would solve for. b is strong enough to make a point, weak enough to still feel fair. b is of a form I know would have resonance for that kid. My daughter… it’s her cell phone. My eldest, his computer privileges. And so on.

But in that reasoning process, the only time I see logic is in framing it as a+b=c. Everything else is emotional value, and intuition telling me how far to go in administering a punishment.

It’s a bit wordy, but I felt an example might help. Does that help? If you have a differing idea of reason, I’d be very happy to hear. The definition of reason (and what people consider it) has long intrigued me.

I largely agree. I’m saying logic, alone, is very poorly suited for life. It doesn’t get me to stop and smell the roses. It doesn’t tell me to give someone a hug. It doesn’t provide me with the impetus to do a lot of things I need to do.

Emotions, similarly, are ill equipped to guide me through life - without being informed by logic. There’s a certain blend that seems to work best, in our culture.

When an argument starts off heavy on logic, but logic that comes out angry… it will cease to be persuasive. Rather, it is offensive.

To be clearer, I could have worded the post differently. Logic IS persuasive - for some. Generally… not so much for others. Whether it should be… that’s a value statement and people will disagree.

Last part, first. I agree with your people who do x are… that’s the extent of the logic there, though. The rest is assigning emotional values to what is done and not done in an effort to determine if my love is sufficient to get what I ask of the court. If I go through the motions but appear to have little feeling - then that I drop them off at day care could be almost a null point. It could be I’m happy to not deal with them. There are people like that out there…

On your first statement… there is a way of presenting logic that feels less “fit the mold dammit!” and more “here’s why I think this way and feel it’s very persuasive.” I believe the second approach works better. You get more flies with honey. Y’know? A friendly approach to logic is better than an exasperated one.

That’s my point. Logic WITH empathy or friendliness is what is persuasive. And people have been hit over the head so oft with logic that sometimes… they instinctively look away unless the delivery is such that they know it won’t really sting.

I’m not getting the impression that your quibble is with logic at all, but rather, with people who make their arguments in an unkind way. Which, fine, yes, the delivery is definitely part of the message, but it’s still not logic’s fault. In the case you describe, it might be the logician’s fault for being a jerk. But most of the blame still has to lie with the people who choose to ignore sound reasoning because they have a mental sweet tooth.

Ok, my thoughts range all over the place on this one. I understand that if a person doesn’t “get” logic or a logical argument, the fault often isn’t with the person delivering (if not a jerk) or with the argument (assuming it’s sound). Even so, I feel like I detect a moralistic judgment of the person. It may or may not be a “mental sweet tooth.”

We are all, imo, of a certain model brain that evolved over time (I’m going to improperly call it stages, but it works)
Reptilian brain - desire to reproduce, avoid pain, seek pleasure/nourishment. Foundational nervous system
Mammalian brain - Greater desire to care for young, more social skills as our progenitor found strength in numbers. For the sake of economy, this new layer used existing circuitry and mechanisms to add its new skills and demands
Primate brain - Still more social. More complicated feelings - guilt, shame, grief, etc. The ability to make and use tools. The rough foundations of language. And again, evolution being a very economical thing, existing circuitry was used and refined - or added to.
Human brain - A reasonable maturation of the language function, still more complicated social feelings, tools beyond compare (so far as we are aware), and logic.

Logic is reasonably new in the evolutionary development of our species. Not everyone “gets” logic, but beyond that, logic sits on top of all those older intuitions and feelings that may or may not be logical. Logic, often, has been used to prove intuitions rather than the other way around - it’s not true logic when that happens, but the back patting is the same. Logic is not foundational. Emotion and feeling are. We ignore that at our peril.

I get that we need moralistic feelings to help weed out certain traits in our species. I do. I just think sometimes that moralistic judgment is actually standing in the way of successful communication. And some are still redeemable - if such be your frame.

I’m speaking generally to this point and not at you as an accusation.

When looking at the range of decisions to make in a day, logic is a small portion of it. What to eat. How to phrase something for maximum impact. What to wear. A lot of small decisions require little to no logic. Only certain decisions - who to talk to about a project, when to leave to beat traffic, etc - are logic based. And even those decisions are driven by an emotional need or desire.

All I am saying is that we keep expecting humans to be logical. And persuadable as such. It would be nice. It’s not what happens.

You don’t have to look far to see a TON of people believing in illogical concepts. Is it JUST that their logical faculties are inadequate? That they have some emotional misfunction that they need some idea? Or… is it that ideas are being presented poorly from the outset? All I’m saying is making emotional connections first helps. Then let logic follow in its wake.

At least if persuasion is the goal.

Ok, so some people aren’t logical. This isn’t news. Just because I can convince somebody to vote for me because I call my opponent a Nazi whore doesn’t mean that makes any sense. I don’t think you’ll find anybody that thinks the only way people are swayed are by logic.

Probably not, but if you read certain threads around here - as an example - you’ll find presentations that seem to be very much, “but what you think isn’t logical!!!111!!”

I’m not arguing for fearmongering either. I’m saying there is a blend that is effective, sane, and retains its logical core.

If it isn’t news, why were people arguing with me?

I think people are confused by your intent. Are you trying to:

[ol]
[li]tell us that some people are too stupid to set their emotions and pre-conceptions aside and make logical decisions[/li][list=a]
[li]though they should aspire to get past that limitation[/li][li]and this is natural and part of what makes us human[/li][/ol]
[li]tell us that all people are sometimes going to be unable to set their emotions and pre-conceptions aside and make logical decisions so we should probably plan for that when trying to convince them of anything[/li][list=a]
[li]not doing so is the failure of the logician[/li][li]because it would be pragmatic for the logician to recognize those limits in others[/li][/list]
[li]tell us there is an inherent failing of logic such that in certain situations it will arrive at an incorrect or unacceptable answer[/li][list=a]
[li]because some things must be grokked on an emotional, not a rational, level to be fully grokked[/li][li]because emotions and logic are incompatible [/li][/list]
[/list]

1a&b - yes. But the word stupid troubles me. Maybe they are just “too busy” and sometimes… they are.
2a - Kind of. I’m not saying unable. I’m saying setting aside emotional preconceptions is hard. Taking some of the difficulty out of it helps a lot.
2b - I think, given current understanding in how people think, we need to allow that if persuasion is the goal, a more respectful and rapport driven style will work best.
3a - Logic can and does arrive at wrong headed decisions. Often due to poor premises. Eugenics could be one. Natural eugenics (natural selection) is fine. Forced eugenics is wrong.
3b - They are, imo, emminently compatable. It’s just work. I think the problem is that people pick a side and stay there. Seldom trying to fully bridge the gap. To over simplify it’s the IQ vs EQ thing. Being logically adept need not make me unfeeling. And being feeling need not obliterate a facility with logic.

It seems to me that “reason” here is being equated with “rhetoric” – y’know, use of pathos, ethos, and logos to win arguments.

Of course, rhetoric too often turns into sophistry.

Agreed on all points. That’s where logic matters - knowing your premises, your reasoning, and staying true to it unless new evidence demands otherwise.

I’m not arguing against logic per se. I’m saying that too often logic is invoked and insisted upon in a way that does little to endear it to the audience. Logic can be beautiful and instructive. It can reveal a LOT. It can also look like a club.

That was me editorializing. You can probably guess where I fall on this checklist.

This is tautological. It’s inherent in the definition of logic that doing it badly will result in poor conclusions.

If a logical person needs to appeal to an illogical person’s emotions to sway them to the right answer, then, fine, whatever, pragmatics win the day. But are arguing in favor of changing the answer to suit the emotional reaction of the audience?

Not at all. Logic persuades me. It does. Often.

Others? Not so much. Assuming belief in the evolutionary theory is logical and intellectually consistent, why do so many Americans prefer a creationist story? I’d submit that the narrative is more compelling for them.

Evolution has a narrative, and it’s compelling, but it’s, at times, presented poorly. And the emotional objections to it (what happens to concepts of morality, soul, spirit, uncaused cause, etc) need to be addressed. People need more than just an intellectual answer. Imo.

As for the tautology of my eugenics example… eugenics, logically, DOES make sense. Only when you allow for our emotional response to said actions, when you allow for how the hollowness of feeling creeping across a society will affect it and spill over, only THEN does it become illogical. But you have to feel about the idea to see how it will affect us.

I guess it can’t be explained - you have to feel the difference.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the problem lies in the fact that you’re separating people into two categories: logical and illogical. Two people can argue, both using logic, and still disagree.

I don’t believe it’s the OP’s intent to say that we must abandon logic in order to sway those who are more persuaded by emotion so much as pointing out that it doesn’t especially make sense to deny that our logic is also influenced by our emotions.

You are making the point nicely. Some people claim a logical high ground. But do so emotionally. And dismissively.

And they lose their audience in the process.

It makes logic look small.

No, it doesn’t. It could make the audience look like idiots, if they can be swayed by blatant but empty emotional appeals. This isn’t logic’s fault.

Not empty. Filling in the remaining blanks that logic leaves cold.

You keep trying to imagine me as a different person than I am, it seems. And my argument.