What do you see as the difference (if any) between rational thinking (analysis) and logical thinking (analysis) ?

[studiot]

Folks often throw in as justification

It's logical that
It's rational that
It's reasonable that
It's sensible that
And other terms I haven't thought of

Well most of the topic is in the title.

But there are a few other words that are also used so they should be included in the discussion.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by studiot

[mistermack]

I would say that rationality is to do with how the thinking matches reality. Whereas logical thinking is to do with how you establish one fact, from another.

You can be very logical, and still get it wrong, if your starting facts are wrong, or don't match reality. 

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would say that rationality is to do with how the thinking matches reality. Whereas logical thinking is to do with how you establish one fact, from another.

You can be very logical, and still get it wrong, if your starting facts are wrong, or don't match reality. 

That would suggest you don't accept that you can apply any of these thought processes to non real or abstract things (like Harry Potter).  ??

Edited July 19, 2022 by studiot

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

That would suggest you don't accept that you can apply any of these thought processes to non real or abstract things (like Harry Potter).  ??

Logical processes, yes you can. But I would say that you temporarily abandon rationality, in order to enjoy thinks like Potter novels. Or you compartmentalise, and your mind remains rational, apart from the Harry Potter compartment. 

[Phi for All]

To me, reason is inherent to my thought process and I've exercised it like a muscle my whole life and watched it grow stronger. Logic is a formal set of rules to help us validate our reasoning.

[studiot]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Logical processes, yes you can. But I would say that you temporarily abandon rationality, in order to enjoy thinks like Potter novels. Or you compartmentalise, and your mind remains rational, apart from the Harry Potter compartment. 

How does that work  and why is it compatible with what you said before ?

 

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

To me, reason is inherent to my thought process and I've exercised it like a muscle my whole life and watched it grow stronger. Logic is a formal set of rules to help us validate our reasoning.

Do you think the only purpose/use of logic is validation ?

Otherwise that's pretty close to my own view, except that I would add in the following.

In logical thinking you are comparing with some external (logicians claim universal) standards.

In rational thinking you are comparing the internal relationships/standards of whatever is under scrutiny. External standards are unneccessary.

Both these these forms of thought can be used together. Sometimes it is difficult to separate them.

[wtf]

Two examples to illustrate the difference between logic and rationality.

Spock is logical. He always proceeds correctly from premises to a conclusion. Kirk is rational. He always does exactly the right thing, even if it's not logical. Kirk's correct actions often baffle Spock. 

Another example is the famous logician Kurt Gödel. He was often called the greatest logician since Aristotle. Later in life he became convinced that people were trying to poison him, and he refused to eat any food not prepared by his wife. When his wife fell ill and could not cook, Gödel refused to eat, and died of starvation.

Gödel was supremely logical; and completely irrational.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Folks often throw in as justification

It's logical that
It's rational that
It's reasonable that
It's sensible that
And other terms I haven't thought of

Well most of the topic is in the title.

But there are a few other words that are also used so they should be included in the discussion.

 

Is there a logical rule for lies?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, wtf said:

Two examples to illustrate the difference between logic and rationality.

Spock is logical. He always proceeds correctly from premises to a conclusion. Kirk is rational. He always does exactly the right thing, even if it's not logical. Kirk's correct actions often baffle Spock. 

Another example is the famous logician Kurt Gödel. He was often called the greatest logician since Aristotle. Later in life he became convinced that people were trying to poison him, and he refused to eat any food not prepared by his wife. When his wife fell ill and could not cook, Gödel refused to eat, and died of starvation.

Gödel was supremely logical; and completely irrational.

Examples are always good, though I'm not sure about the first ones as you can make a fictional character do anything.

But thank you for reminding me of Godel's story. +1

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is there a logical rule for lies?

Well since fiction can be logical, why not ?

[DrmDoc]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Folks often throw in as justification

It's logical that
It's rational that
It's reasonable that
It's sensible that
And other terms I haven't thought of

Well most of the topic is in the title.

But there are a few other words that are also used so they should be included in the discussion.

 

The distinction between logic and reason is slight but not, IMO, indistinguisable.  Logic is about a methodical summation or answer based on relative truths or facts; whereas, reasoning is about a ponderance of the evidence supporting a truth or fact.  For example, If a=b and b=c, then logic suggests that a=c.  Conversely, reasoning suggests that a=c because of the evidence a=b and b=c provides.  Essentially, logic regards our methodical somewhat mathmatical approach to a conclusion, while reason regards the evidence we ponder to reach that conclusion--logic is the equation and reason is it's elements.

[CharonY]

I think that "logical" refers to essentially a narrow set of premises which are being evaluated. "Rational" refers to some broader assessments that will take a broader context into account and might dismiss unlikely (or untrue) premises. I.e. the latter is embedded in a broader body of knowledge. 

I am pretty sure someone with an actual philosophy background ( @Eise ?) can provide a more complete rundown, especially when it comes to the concept(s) of reason. The one I came across often add an layer of morality. E.g. a rational assessment is often utilitarian and is aimed at maximizing some kind of values. However a reasonable approach could take societal norms and their impact into further account (even if the norms themselves might not appear rational on their own grounds).

Some have kind of married these two elements (I would think in the line of Kant's categorical imperative) but I realize that my familiarity with that matter has eroded a lot and I may be way off at this point.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

The distinction between logic and reason is slight but not, IMO, indistinguisable.  Logic is about a methodical summation or answer based on relative truths or facts; whereas, reasoning is about a ponderance of the evidence supporting a truth or fact.  For example, If a=b and b=c, then logic suggests that a=c.  Conversely, reasoning suggests that a=c because of the evidence a=b and b=c provides.  Essentially, logic regards our methodical somewhat mathmatical approach to a conclusion, while reason regards the evidence we ponder to reach that conclusion--logic is the equation and reason is it's elements.

Interesting, although I would place the output of reasoning as a conclusion and say that logic is more concerned with 'truth values'.  +1

[Peterkin]

Reasoning is what every entity with a brain does to solve problems and make decision. If the entity is sane and viable, the vast majority of its reasoning is rational and logical. The soundness of its conclusions depend on the quantity and quality of information with which it was supplied at the beginning a reasoning process.

As thinking entities gain complexity, they develop more facets to their mental capability: instinct, emotion, memory, pattern-recognition, empathy, anticipation, abstraction, generalization, imagination, intuition, projection. These aspects of thought can be life enhancing and prompt decisions that have positive outcomes for the individual, or its progeny or its species, but are not necessarily rational or logical.

They can also lead the thinking entity into reasoning on false premises, or according to irrational rules. The individual is not necessarily insane or non-viable when this happens (though it often is the case) but they are no longer logical. Logic is strictly constrained by its own rules, while reasoning may range widely and make use of other faculties. 

Logic is a mental tool that can be applied to a given subject or problem or discipline or situation. One can ask: Does the imaginary world of Harry Potter have a prevailing internal logic? Yes - all stories, dreams, religions, fantasies, national constitutions, games, sports, clubs, businesses, relationships and even jokes do. Then, if one asked of a specific act or event in a Harry Potter story : Is that logical? it would be in the context of the rules of that world, rather than outward reality. Likewise, when characters in a story reason, the factors they consider are those that prevail in their world, not ours; their decisions are rational or irrational by the internal standards of the story-world. 

And when people in our world reason, we don't always know whether they're applying logic, or to what degree, what other faculties they're using, and in what system of rules they operate. 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[Eise]

Before I throw a long posting on this topic, I would like to say that we should realise that a lot of these expressions are colloquially used in daily language. Critising people for not using these terms in their (philosophical) technical meaning is often not useful. If somebody presents some reasons why she thinks something, and calls it 'logical' I normally do not have any problem with that. If the viewpoint expressed is not correct, I will just give arguments against it, not caring about the 'misuse' of the word 'logical'. Only when somebody thinks she has given a logically impeccable argument, i.e. she is really referring to the power of formal logic, I will confront the misuse.

When I look at the list that Studiot has given, I would say it is a nice list, with a slowly less convincing 'feeling' about it: 'logical' being something like 'having strong arguments in favour' of a viewpoint, till 'sensible' which is already approaching 'intuitional' or based on similarities with other argumentations/phenomena/processes/things... that the speaker sees. 

So the context in which words from Studiot's list are used is important. If I may use a not so philosophical concept...: it is not always necessary to be an ant fucker on the (mis)use of these expressions. Maybe I will post some more later, on the exact question of the question in the topic.

Formally, there is definitely a difference between 'logical' and 'rational', and some of the postings here have correct pointers at this difference. I like DrmDoc's posting here very much. I might have not even much more to say if we stick precisely to the question of the topic. (Ok, there we go.. +1 )

[mistermack]

Years ago, people tried their very best to make philosophy into a science, making rules and catagorizing arguments. They thought that they could make it like maths, where you could start at A, follow rigid rules, and end up at B.

It eventually became obvious that that was not possible. Words will never be absolute like numbers. In the end, it's irrelevant, but entertaining. Like esperanto. 

Everybody has an instinct of some sort for logic, reason and rationality. You don't need rules or catagories, you just need to be able to think and express yourself.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Well since fiction can be logical, why not ?

I was thinking about a logical rule of when to lie; fiction is what we tell ourselves, a lie is what we tell other's for validation of our fiction...

my point is, logic does not and can't understand emotional intelligence and that's rational, given our humanity... 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You don't need rules or catagories, you just need to be able to think and express yourself.

But you surely need a rule, to express yourself effectively; don't you? 

[MyCall]

Of course it all depends on the definitions whether there is a difference between rational and logical thinking. At first impression I could make that difference. Using rational for structered thinking and logical for mathematical thinking. And then the difference might be that you use logical thinking in a closed system. Rational thinking is used on a meta-level in which you think about your logical thoughts. Therewith it is possible to think logical but irrational at the same time. That is if your logical system turn out to be false. Or am I wrong ?

Another example. Millenia ago some people thought that the sun dies everyday and will be given birth by an entity the next day. In relgious context this is logical and makes rational sense. Nowadays we learned about the existence of planets. No longer it's called rational that the sun is a child of some entity. At a meta-level we adjusted our logic about the sun(rise), night and day.

Edited September 10, 2022 by MyCall
typo, adjustment

[MigL]

Most people ( myself included ) have no formal training in the application of ( mathematical ) logic.
But they watched Mr Spock on Star Trek, and think that using the word makes them sound authorative.

Rational, reasonable and sensible imply that a decreasing amount of thinking has gone into forming that thought or opinion, but there may be no formal logic involved at all.
Then again, I'm sure some amount of thinking goes into irrational, unreasonable and insensible thoughts and ideas also, in which case none of them mean what we intend them to mean.