Will a different brain help avoiding logical fallacies?

[Jouni]

In fact science isn't really an appeal to authority as you say, as scientists don't appeal to one authoritative body or person, but the collective, peer-reviewed literature. There is a difference between an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity and an appeal to scientific consensus.

Science is like that in a world, where everyone has infinite time. In the real world, the reasoning is more like: "This claim seems dubious. It was made by some unknown people and published in a not-so-good journal. I don't have the time to check it, so I'll assume that it's wrong."

[phoenix_ca]

Some of the greatest things humans have done are illogical. Try justifying the Apollo program on a logical basis, or the pyramids, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The resources for these would logically have been better spent on more practical endeavors, but thankfully sometimes we do illogical things.

Logical thought is useful, but it's not the end-all be-all of humanity.

Thinking rationally and being able to create such wonders aren't mutually exclusive though. I can still create pieces of music, or paintings, or photographs, and they needn't stem from purely logical reasoning. (And in fact such seemingly illogical pursuits are entirely compatible with existentialism.)

Common sense is a good rule of thumb even if often wrong, also it don't make sense to use more energy finding the optimal solution than using a solution who work.

Making thing who go fast aerodynamic is smart in real world so you do it in KSP too until realizing it don't matter or learn it from other.

By all means use "common sense" when you have verified that it actually works. That's why the appeal to common sense or personal incredulity is an informal one after all. Sometimes common sense turns-out to be right and useful. But what's meant by people who call an argument fallacious because of an appeal to common sense is that the act of simply predicating an argument based on what is or is perceived to be common sense is unsound. That something is considered common sense doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

Besides, if you've verified that it's correct, it's not really "common sense" now is it?

I'd even argue it's not even a good rule-of-thumb most of the time, but I haven't any numbers to share on that off the top of my head and as I recall they're hard to pin-down anyway.

Science is like that in a world, where everyone has infinite time. In the real world, the reasoning is more like: "This claim seems dubious. It was made by some unknown people and published in a not-so-good journal. I don't have the time to check it, so I'll assume that it's wrong."

I doubt it's made with such malice. It probably ends at "I don't have time to check it". Which is understandable. The vast amounts of scientific data we produce now are extremely difficult to keep-up with, especially if you actually are trying to practice science or medicine. Indeed, IBM seems to have had to foresight to recognize the problem and attempt to find a solution with Waston and interpreting the vast amounts of medical data available.

Edited June 4, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[CaptainKipard]

Phoenix_ca you've done a great job correcting things here. I went through the whole thread, checking "multi-quote" and by the time I got to the end there was nothing left to say.

Except for two things maybe. Quick reactions like the ones needed on the African savannah involve a different part of the brain than rational thought. It's this part of the brain that makes people react, instead of responding.

And second, If children can sing a hymn, they can recite the three axioms of logic and all the fallacies.

[Jouni]

Except for two things maybe. Quick reactions like the ones needed on the African savannah involve a different part of the brain than rational thought. It's this part of the brain that makes people react, instead of responding.

It's not just about quick reactions, but also about quick thinking. Logical reasoning doesn't parallelize too well, so it's the sequential speed that matters, and the human brain is extremely slow.

[CaptainKipard]

It's not just about quick reactions, but also about quick thinking. Logical reasoning doesn't parallelize too well, so it's the sequential speed that matters, and the human brain is extremely slow.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[Jouni]

I don't understand what you're saying.

The human brain is an extremely slow massively parallel computer. Some computational tasks can be easily computed in parallel. Others are inherently sequential. To solve sequential tasks faster, you need a faster computer - using more computers doesn't help too much. Logical reasoning seems to be one of those inherently sequential tasks.

In a dangerous situation, the ability to make good decisions quickly increases the chances of survival. There's no time for slow and wasteful logical reasoning, so evolution tends to favor those who can use their massively parallel brains efficiently. Therefore we recognize patterns, make generalizations, form associations, and follow rules of thumb. The decisions we make are sometimes bad, but they're still better than not being able to make a decision in time.

And now we live in a rational and highly abstract society, with brains that are better suited for art and fighting than for science and engineering.

[WestAir]

To answer the OP,

No, I do not believe that an entirely new type of brain, CPU, what-have-you is necessary to create a brain incapable of logical fallacies. I personally think it is possible, however unlikely, for a human brain to have a sequence of neural connections that make it apparent to that brain when a logical fallacy is thought up. Considering there have been over 120,000,000,000 humans since the dawn of man, I also like to think that at least one of those unique brains has existed between our rise from the Horn of Africa to 2014.

[vger]

No, I do not believe that an entirely new type of brain, CPU, what-have-you is necessary to create a brain incapable of logical fallacies. I personally think it is possible, however unlikely, for a human brain to have a sequence of neural connections that make it apparent to that brain when a logical fallacy is thought up. Considering there have been over 120,000,000,000 humans since the dawn of man, I also like to think that at least one of those unique brains has existed between our rise from the Horn of Africa to 2014.

Natural selection would have probably eliminated it though. Pausing to wonder if running from a lion is actually the right decision (even if it's only for a microsecond) would not give such a human a good chance at survival.

[phoenix_ca]

Natural selection would have probably eliminated it though. Pausing to wonder if running from a lion is actually the right decision (even if it's only for a microsecond) would not give such a human a good chance at survival.

Except that many, many philosophers recognized the utility of such instincts.

[CaptainKipard]

Natural selection would have probably eliminated it though. Pausing to wonder if running from a lion is actually the right decision (even if it's only for a microsecond) would not give such a human a good chance at survival.

Fallacy of false dichotomy here. ^^^

Also natural selection hasn't eliminated it because there are a lot of brains out there that naturally catch logical fallacies much easier than regular people. They're called High Functioning Autistic.