|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert asked:
|
|
Is logic the best way of solving problems or is it limited?
|
|
If it is limited, then what would be a better way of solving problems?
|
|
============
|
|
Logic, on its own, cannot solve problems. Logic is merely a way of ensuring that we do not lose truth
as we reason (i.e. if we start with true statements, and we follow the rules of logic, we can guarantee
that we finish with true statements).
|
|
By far the trickiest bit of solving problems, therefore, is ensuring that we start with true statements,
and that any further statements we introduce (rather than deduce by following the rules of logic) in the
course of solving the problem are also true. Logic cannot help us here.
|
|
Furthermore, problems are problems because they worry us. Without that worry (or curiosity or some
other emotion), there is no problem and no drive to solve it. Problems arise in contexts, so we must
be guided in our solution by what is appropriate to that context, and by the situational constraints and
supports. Problems often require going beyond the obvious, through the use of creativity and intuition.
Emotion, context, creativity are all other factors that work with logic to help solve problems.
|
|
So, logic is essential to much problem-solving (otherwise you cannot ensure that the truth of what you
are saying is preserved), but on its own it is useless. A better way is not (to my mind) a non-logical
way, but a way that appropriately blends logic, emotion, context and creativity in embodied humans.
|
|
Tim Sprod
|
|