Logic is NOT persuasive

[Syntropy]

@Bryan Ekers

No, it doesn’t.

It does to people who need more.

It could make the audience look like idiots, if they can be swayed by blatant but empty emotional appeals.

Only to those who lack the people skills to extend themselves enough to make their logic appeal to their audience. I had a physics professor who was the cure to insomnia. He taught facts and didn’t think it necessary to make his class interesting. I learned much more from my tutor, who taught the same facts but was able to do so in a way that engaged me.

This isn’t logic’s fault.

Nope. It’s the fault of the self righteous twit who insists that since it’s logical, that should be all that’s required.

[Anomalous_Reading]

Let’s try a different tack.

When a person has a deeply held emotional or intuitive belief and a compelling counter argument arises, logically, the person offering the logic often feels that’s all that is needed. And logically, they are right. But… that’s a whole person on the other side, perhaps with an ornate belief system built on the faulty premise. To offer only logic, insist it is enough, is to undervalue the depth of the issue. At times lives, relationships, self-image all hang in the balance.

When I recently told a co-worker I was an atheist and she asked me why I left the church, I explained it. Logically and emotionally as a journey of realizing that there’s no God - at least not as portrayed in any version of the Bible. Her first question? Then where does morality come from?

Is that logical? Yes. But no. Logically evolution is proven. Irrespective of morality. BUT she also knows and knew that she experiences morality daily. Impressions of right and wrong. If my premise of evolution couldn’t account for where that came from, then… it wasn’t a complete answer. If there’s no basis for morality, there is no morality. (I think that morality is quite nicely wired into our brains and arises naturally. And emotions most definitely shape that.) But she had a point. She knows she experiences morality. It’s a truth for her. Important and deep. If I couldn’t explain that, I didn’t have an answer.

We wrapped up that conversation quickly and I didn’t push the issue. She’s married to a preacher’s son and very active in the church. So long as she isn’t pushing to get ID inserted into textbooks or being a bigot on homosexuality… I have no qualms with her beliefs. Oh, and abortion too. Anyhow…

The emotional issues that a logical argument creates (because on some topics it does) are not simply the responsibility of the audience, in my opinion. If a person seeks to persuade a person to a point, it is incumbent on them to bring a complete solution. Not to come to the end of their logical argument and say “You can’t agree with me??? What a moron!”

Sadly, too often that’s exactly what happens.

(You can make a very tidy argument for morality without any supernatural beliefs. I know I can. It’s an interesting and very honest and compelling argument, imo. It is emotional reasoning with logic mixed in. People GET that cooperation is important to survival. Frame the argument correctly, and you’ll be heard often enough.)

In the end, logic isn’t sufficient. On certain topics. To suggest otherwise, imo, is inhuman.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Maureen

Nope. It’s the fault of the self righteous twit who insists that since it’s logical, that should be all that’s required.

Why, which twit would that be, Maureen?

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Bryan Ekers

Why, which twit would that be, Maureen?

Are you going to add anything to this conversation or just keep sniping?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Anomalous Reading

Are you going to add anything to this conversation or just keep sniping?

Hey, at least I didn’t make it personal.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Bryan Ekers

Hey, at least I didn’t make it personal.

You really have illustrated my point quite nicely. Do you intend to add to the dialogue or just snipe?

I’ve explained quite a bit since you last contributed in a meaningful way.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Anomalous Reading

I’ve explained quite a bit since you last contributed in a meaningful way.

And after looking at all this contributions, I don’t see anything that can’t be succinctly addressed by my post#37. If your message is something other than “tailor your approach to your audience and the goals you want to achieve”, I can’t see it.

[Boyo_Jim]

So who uses logic – alone? Unless we count our computers, I don’t know anyone who does this.

And this:

Admit that you can see how they arrived at that conclusion.

In many cases that would mean, “Lie to the person”, because I have no idea how they’ve picked up the wacky ideas they have, nor do I really care.

I know this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, but I don’t think that stretches to willful ignorance. You’re certainly right, the willfully ignorant cannot be swayed by logic, but show me any evidence they can be swayed by emotion either. IMO the best outcome for that approach is they they don’t put you into their ‘enemies’ camp, and imagine that you might be open to further persuasion by them. And that outcome sucks, because they will start in on you as a possible convert.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Bryan Ekers

And after looking at all this contributions, I don’t see anything that can’t be succinctly addressed by my post#37. If your message is something other than “tailor your approach to your audience and the goals you want to achieve”, I can’t see it.

That is MOST of the point. The rest is being willing to provide more than a strictly logical explanation.

Additionally, often the proponents of logic look like assholes. The complete lack of logic in “wanting” to persuade a person of a point and deliberately choosing a course that will alienate still mystifies me. Yet, they deem themselves the logical ones based on their logical position in the argument. Their approach, however, sucks in a big way.

Emotionally tone deaf might be an apt modifier.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Boyo Jim

So who uses logic – alone? Unless we count our computers, I don’t know anyone who does this.

And this:
In many cases that would mean, “Lie to the person”, because I have no idea how they’ve picked up the wacky ideas they have, nor do I really care.

No one, but a lot of logic purveyors say they are being logical, while having a very visceral emotional response.

@Boyo Jim

I know this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, but I don’t think that stretches to willful ignorance. You’re certainly right, the willfully ignorant cannot be swayed by logic, but show me any evidence they can be swayed by emotion either. IMO the best outcome for that approach is they they don’t put you into their ‘enemies’ camp, and imagine that you might be open to further persuasion by them. And that outcome sucks, because they will start in on you as a possible convert.

Then how do they come to their decisions? You’ve ruled out logic and emotion… I suppose we are running with experience and conditioning? If so the clinging to tradition is an emotional decision - and provides an insight as to what matters to that person.

A lot of people with illogical beliefs are reachable - if you want to persuade. And I am not, imo, simply talking about the willfully ignorant. There are those who don’t know stuff - and those who very deliberately ignore stuff. The latter camp, I also have qualms with. A respectful conversation can at least be had by all if the person is in the former camp.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Anomalous Reading

In the end, logic isn’t sufficient. On certain topics. To suggest otherwise, imo, is inhuman.

This is somewhat different than what you said in the OP, namely:

I’d argue that it’s far more logical, to not use logic to argue. Not on certain topics.

The difference, of course, is that of sufficiency vs. necessity.

I think you’d find very few people debating whether logic alone is sufficient, in all cases, to win an argument. However, saying that some degree of logic isn’t necessary when making an argument is quite another matter, isn’t it?

On preview, echoing Boyo Jim: So who uses logic – alone? Personally, I’d recast the debate in terms of using all rhetoric’s tools/techniques (of which logic is one), although it’s not clear to me how you’d ground it.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Boyo Jim

In many cases that would mean, “Lie to the person”, because I have no idea how they’ve picked up the wacky ideas they have, nor do I really care.

I understand your point. Can you really not relate to how some people arrive at various illogical things? That a desire to fit, a desire for affirmation, love, or a misinterpretation of events when our intuitions deceive us, can cause a person to hold very deep beliefs?

I’ve made the point elsewhere… our brains lie to us all the time. I mean… like non-stop. We personify stuff like the wind, a computer, a software application, a car. We look for and assign causes to things. Put those two instincts together and you have enough to find a supernatural being - in the absence of enough scientific training. And there are other ways of getting to the same point that feel… much more real.

I’m not saying that being illogical is good. I’m saying that logical arguments would benefit a LOT be adding a component of relating. I do not advocate lying. I do advocate trying to understand. Once you understand why a person thinks something - you are in a far better position to persuade than if you don’t.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Digital Stimulus

This is somewhat different than what you said in the OP, namely:
The difference, of course, is that of sufficiency vs. necessity.

I think you’d find very few people debating whether logic alone is sufficient, in all cases, to win an argument. However, saying that some degree of logic isn’t necessary when making an argument is quite another matter, isn’t it?

On preview, echoing Boyo Jim: So who uses logic – alone? Personally, I’d recast the debate in terms of using all rhetoric’s tools/techniques (of which logic is one), although it’s not clear to me how you’d ground it.

Agreed. I can, however, get a person to largely see morality as an emergent thing without invoking too much logic. It requires emotional reasoning. A lot of getting a person to see something as reasonable is playing instead to intuition than logic - although they can seem very similar, imo.

(I trimmed my OP to shorten its length. Some of my point may have been lost in the process. Nonetheless, I’d say logic persuades those who are emotionally invested in being logical on some level. Those who are less invested, need a different or more reasons.)

[Boyo_Jim]

@Anomalous Reading

No one, but a lot of logic purveyors say they are being logical, while having a very visceral emotional response.
Then how do they come to their decisions? You’ve ruled out logic and emotion… I suppose we are running with experience and conditioning? If so the clinging to tradition is an emotional decision - and provides an insight as to what matters to that person.

A lot of people with illogical beliefs are reachable - if you want to persuade. And I am not, imo, simply talking about the willfully ignorant. There are those who don’t know stuff - and those who very deliberately ignore stuff. The latter camp, I also have qualms with. A respectful conversation can at least be had by all if the person is in the former camp.

Then how do they come to their decisions?.. I suppose we are running with experience and conditioning?

By and large I would agree with this, although I’m sure there would be resistance to the use of the term ‘conditioning’.

Let’s talk about ignorance. There are the ‘willfully ignorant’ who seem to have enormous ego investment in NOT changing their positions regardless of the evidence presented. And others, who for lack of a better term, I’ll call ‘genuinely ignorant’. Most of us, I hope fall into this latter category, as we are all ignorant in many areas.

Genuinely ignorant people don’t know the information necessary to make informed decision, but more importantly, they understand that they don’t know the information. These people are open to logical persuasion.

The willfully ignorant people believe they know all they need to know. How they got there I really couldn’t say other than they received poor parenting and guidance in their youth. They only thing likely to change their minds at this point, IMO, would be some personal experience powerful enough to shake their belief structure.

Politicians make use of these people by claiming to be one of them. “Vote for me and I will carry your ideas forward on a bigger scale.” Marketers use these people by designing ad campaigns to reinforce their prejudices, or at least not threaten them. Virtually no one is trying to change their understanding of the world.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Anomalous Reading

Additionally, often the proponents of logic look like assholes. The complete lack of logic in “wanting” to persuade a person of a point and deliberately choosing a course that will alienate still mystifies me. Yet, they deem themselves the logical ones based on their logical position in the argument. Their approach, however, sucks in a big way.

This is the part I don’t get. This isn’t demonstrating a fault inherent in logic or the practitioners of logic, it’s just expressing your personal dislike and assuming it’s broadly (if not universally) shared by others.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@Bryan Ekers

This is the part I don’t get. This isn’t demonstrating a fault inherent in logic or the practitioners of logic, it’s just expressing your personal dislike and assuming it’s broadly (if not universally) shared by others.

I’ve seen it play out too often to assume this is simply a matter of my tastes. Logic, like many things, if packaged poorly, won’t sell.

[Anomalous_Reading]

How about this…

Can anyone tell me why I should be logical?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Anomalous Reading

Logic, like many things, if packaged poorly, won’t sell.

Isn’t that true of anything that is packaged poorly? Couldn’t it be just as true of a nonlogical argument?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Anomalous Reading

How about this…

Can anyone tell me why I should be logical?

Wow, that’s pretty far astray from your OP.

You should be logical because it’s about the only framework available offering consistency, yet a degree of flexibility. The other frameworks are more or less different flavors of bibles, received truths not subject to criticism or revision.

Logical arguements can change based on the best available information, which changes over time, unlike biblical models.

[Chimera]

This thread has rapidly become a lesson in how Logic can be completely corrupted by Emotion.