Difference of Reason and Logic

[TINNY]

Does reasoning imply logic?
What is logic?
How is it different from reason? IF it aint logical, is it reasonable?

[Fishteacher73]

Logic I would say is universal. A=B, B=C, then A=C. It is direct and does not vary to circumstance. Reason on the other hand I this is a bit subjective. It is reasonable to eat a hamburger if you are not a Hindu. It is not reasonable to eat a hamburger if you are a Hindu.

It would be logical to eat the hamburger if you were starving, but may be unreasonable to do so if you are Hindu.

Logic and reasoning do not always sync up.

[Buffy]

There are a couple of different meanings of "reasonable" in play here. The Hindu example is "reasonable" as "acceptable" or "matching norms". I was thinking along the same lines as Fish, but came up with using probability as part of "reasoning" as in "coming to a conclusion given a set of facts". If the sky is clear right now I reason that it is not going to rain today, although while unlikely, the clouds could quickly form over the bay and rain on my parade. That might be an inference, but its not formal Predicate Logic....

Cheers,
Buffy

[OneArmedScissor]

This question was asked recently on another message board (Something Awful).

I'll just copy and paste a few of the responses from the people of that board:

"We dont attain it. It is the basis of thought, it is what makes thought possible. We discover it, but not by looking at the universe. Looking at the universe reveals geometric truths, as for instance we might discover the relation between the circumfrence and diameter of a circle.

Logical truths are discovered by thought and reason, but are not dependent on thought or reason. Logic is what makes thought possible- logic it true because it could be no other way."

I response to what was said above:

"Right. This is what I would normally agree with. It started with a conversation with a friend. I mocked him for assuming that a possible illogical world can exist. (Where strange things happen, for example, an object being itself and its opposite simultaneously.)

I got around to thinking about what logic is. If I were to accept physicalism, then logic must be physical. If everything is physical, logic was created through physical means. (Brain processes and observation.) For logic to exist in-itself, and exist regardless of whether or not it was developed or perceived by something, it would have to be nonphysical.

Even if it is nonphysical, our awareness of it (through, as you say, "thought and reason") is because of physical processes. Unless there is a nonphysical aspect of our knowledge. (Memory and mental capacities outside of the brain.)

If logic is not empirical....

Everyone who I've told "logic is true because it could be no other way" tell me that this is tautological. I understand it, but I can't explain it so well. An explanation would be logical. It would be logic proving logic. (Presuming that illogic is impossible, of course only logic could prove logic.) But how is that different than saying, "The Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true."?"

"Logic" in the sense that you're using it is the substrate of existence. It's all the most basic rules that make up existence, like A or not A.

Since we exist on top of that substrate, we completely lack an objective reference point that would let us think about what a universe with a "different type of logic" would look like.

It's certainly interesting to try, but the question "but where did A or not A come from, and could it be different?" is pretty much unanswerable.

edit to expound slightly: because our language deals with existence, it's bound by the rules of logic. The statement "the man walked into the room" tells you it was a man and not a woman or a goat or something else (A or not A again), that he walked in (as opposed to flying, teleporting, crawling, whatever) and that it was a room, not a castle or a field. It also tells you that there is only one room (and one man) as opposed to many. All of those come from A or not A.

So because language makes use of logical axioms, I don't think you can frame the question properly. Presumably if my reasoning is correct, you can't even imagine the question properly, because the brain, and thus your thinking, obeys physical rules like everything else."

These were just a few of the many posts on what is logic, etc.
I'm not saying any of them are right or wrong. I am simply giving opinions from other people.

[Freethinker]

Interesting question. I had a few intial thoughts, which suprisingly are different than those expressed already. (Me different? Nah!) So I went to WWWebster. "Reason" did not help., but Logic conformed my thoughts.

Logic - Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason.

Assuming you meant "(TO) reason". Perhaps "reason" is the process and "logic" is one of the tools that can be used for it. When we think about something, we are using "reason". We are "reasoning". Someone could present a "reason" which is NOT logical. Therefore they are not synonymous or interchangable. One can say "I use logic when I reason". But not "I use reason when I logic".