How reliable is a "Logic / Objectivity" Bias when it comes to reasoning? Or, What are the potential limitations or vulnerabilities of relying solely on these bases of reasoning?

Note 1: "Objectivity" and "Logic" are sometimes used interchangeably. But, I am speaking to the strength of "Objectivity" - not Logic, nor symbolic logic.

However, it seems that along with other forms of reasoning - people often proclaim a Objectivity Bias, rather than other standards of reasoning: tradition, science, empiricism [different from science], pathos, ethos, Logos, (in the "Intrinsic Pattern" sense of Heraclitus), equanimity, wisdom, divine revelation, etc.

Note 2: Some of those standards may appear "objective" - but are they really? In view of time, exhaustive knowledge, etc?

What are the limitations and vulnerabilities of "Objectivity" when it comes to validating reasoning?


Objectively, A particular social practice has historically led to the betterment of a society, in general. However, my heart is torn and I feel that the practice is immoral - because its benefits are at the expense of others. So, I will choose to go with my 'heart' in this case - despite the objective facts set out in this case.

  • Potential Limitation? Are there types of "Truth" that "Objectivity" could not validate? Other Limitations?
  • Potential Vulnerability? Are Objective Proofs susceptible to "Divergent Thinking"? Other vulnerabilities?

Specific Examples where Objectivity was appropriately set aside for other forms of reasoning would sufficiently answer the question.

  • What do you mean by "logic"? Just the study of deductive inference? If so, then it won't be able to validate inductive inference, or abductive inferences (inference to the best explanation), since both have a probabilistic component and so it won't be the case that the premises necessitate the conclusion (they only render it probable to some degree of likelihood). – Dennis Aug 16 '17 at 1:05
  • I'm afraid that this wide use of "logic" will be too broad to make this an answerable question. On most conceptions of logic, it has an almost purely syntactic nature. What the non-logical symbols mean doesn't matter, and you don't get any substantive truths about the world from logic alone. You need some sort of input -- either empirical in nature or perhaps spiritual like "divine revelation" -- to give you truths to plug in as premises in an argument. Then logic can tell you what logically follows from those premises.... – Dennis Aug 17 '17 at 20:25
  • ...But the only truths you can get from logic alone are logical truths. Perhaps you have in mind something like Rationalism? Almost by definition, any "form of reasoning" would count as a logic of some sort -- it just might not be a very appealing one. – Dennis Aug 17 '17 at 20:28
  • Pyrronian Skepticism might also be relevant to your question. Generally, though, you'll need to narrow what you're willing to count as "logic" to get a concrete answer. No matter what, though, there must be non-logical ways to gain knowledge of truths. If for no other reason, you must have some way of coming to know primitive logical truths (the axioms and basic inferences), and you certainly can't reason your way to those. (Note that even the Pyrronian Skeptics admitted perception in addition to reason as a source of evidence.) – Dennis Aug 17 '17 at 20:44
  • @Dennis - I feel that there are many bases for "Rationalism", (Science, objectivity, ethos, pathos, etc., etc.,). However - I do agree that "Logic" in general was not speaking to exactly what I am asking about. I am in fact asking about challenges against "objectivity", which is seems to be "hailed" as the best form of bias of the bunch. Obviously, I could use any help wording the question. – elika kohen Aug 18 '17 at 7:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.