The Role of Logic and Almost Matches in Decision Making

When someone accuses you of being illogical, it may seem like the discussion is about to end. After all, if you’re not thinking logically, you’re irrational and unreasonable. But what if it’s possible to think well without relying solely on logical arguments? This article explores the relationship between logic and almost matches in decision making, debunking the myth that being illogical means completely abandoning logical reasoning.

What Does Being Illogical Mean?

When someone claims you’re not being logical, it signals the end of a discussion. It implies that your arguments are based on emotions rather than facts. However, the concept of logic involves more than just deductive reasoning. As illustrated by some recent political discourses, such as the criticism of Narendra Modi versus Mamata Banerjee, it reveals where true logical analysis is lacking.

In a recent incident, it was pointed out that a random BJP worker’s remark was imputed to Modi, whereas Mamata Banerjee was not held responsible for the actions of Sheikh Shahjahan. This example highlights the selective application of logic, where individuals may choose to be illogical in favor of their preferred narrative.

Understanding Logical and Almost Match Thought Processes

Inductive reasoning, or thinking by analogy, is a powerful tool in our cognitive arsenal. It involves recognizing patterns and making inferences based on similar past events. This cognitive process is distinct from deductive logic, which relies on established rules and premises to derive a conclusion.

Almost Matches, a term coined to describe the brain’s ability to connect distant similarities in our perceptions, play a crucial role in inductive reasoning. When our neurons fire in response to similar inputs, we form associations that can help us make predictions and decisions even when the data is incomplete.

For example, when you see a stock market chart that reminds you of the crash in 2008, you might sell your stocks as a precaution. This is an almost match, not a logical deduction based on specific facts. Induction is the source of new ideas and reasoning that drives creativity in various fields, from art to science.

Limitations of Logical Deduction

While deductive logic is perfect in its structure, it often fails in real-world applications. Sometimes, we don’t have the necessary logical theory to combine our existing facts into a meaningful conclusion. In the stock market example, although there is no inherent logical connection, we still make decisions based on past patterns and experiences.

Furthermore, our knowledge is often incomplete. We can only see a small slice of the overall reality, which means our premises are often incomplete. To fill this gap, we rely on almost matches and generalizations that serve as logical premises. This is especially true in scientific hypothesis formation, where new ideas emerge from partial patterns rather than complete logical derivations.

The Hypothetical-Deductive Method and Almost Matches

The Hypothetical-Deductive Method, a cornerstone of the scientific method, exemplifies the interaction between inductive and deductive reasoning. Scientists generate hypotheses based on existing knowledge, intuition, or experience, and then test these hypotheses against experimental results using deductive logic.

The Encyclopedia Britannica succinctly describes this process: 'The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge intuition or experience.' The source of these hypotheses often lies in induction, where partial patterns foreshadow a broader generalization.

This interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning highlights the legitimacy and importance of almost matches in decision making. Inductive reasoning, which is essential for innovation and creativity, often forms the foundation upon which logical arguments are built.

In conclusion, while logic is a powerful tool, it should not be the sole basis of decision making. Almost matches, the brain’s ability to recognize and connect similar patterns, play a crucial role in our cognitive processes. Being illogical, in the sense of basing decisions on almost matched patterns rather than complete logical deductions, is not necessarily irrational. It is a legitimate and often necessary aspect of human reasoning.