The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as “the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference.” Logic is supposed to let one analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. Nearly everyone claims logical or commonsense arguments these days yet nobody seems to be in agreement. If a topic is so logical, so apparent, so commonsense, then why are so many in disagreement?
First, one must understand that logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be absolutely impossible. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
Secondly, logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. One must decide whether logic is the right tool for the situation. There are other ways to communicate, discuss, and debate with hundreds of rhetorical devices that use induction, inference, and analogy amongst hundreds of others devices that are not pure logic.
Third, when using logic one must know which genre to draw upon. There is fuzzy logic, Boolean logic, vertical logic, lateral logic, and of course there are classical forms of logic within philosophy.
Vertical logic is simple minded and commonly if-then, cause and effect, or deductive structures which are typical of a child?s mind. Aristotelian logic is formalized vertical thinking. This logic tends to be binary in nature and does not represent the world as humans know it. This kind of logic focuses principally on deduction and ignores induction almost entirely. Aristotle?s definition of deduction is not a precise match for the modern definition of validity either. Aristotelian Science is the Posterior Analytics Episteme which is a special case of science that deals with deduction and does not embrace the totality of science. It is simply put cause and effect logic thinking that children tend to mimic.
Lateral logic is more sophisticated requiring a mind to be creative and relies on inference and inductive thought. The greatest minds in human history used lateral logic approaches. When the Wright Brothers set out to build a flying contraption, many respected people thought the idea foolish. Everybody knew that a machine heavier than air could not fly. When Marconi tried to transmit a radio signal across the Atlantic, the experts ridiculed the idea of sending radio waves around the curved surface of the earth since they traveled line of sight. When Galileo proposed that the Earth rotated around the sun, and not vice versa, he was shamefully disbelieved. Yet each of these people changed the world by overcoming traditional thinking, and found ways to prove possible what was once thought not possible.
In short, I conclude that human behavior is a greater factor influencing knowledge than logic. Those who humble themselves and explore greater unknowns are more likely to discover greater knowledge than those who are full of logical conceit.