What is logical thinking?

https://gyazo.com/9946033de02ab324b047af34124d5607

Same author as [Cultural Foundations of "Logical Thinking"

GPT.icon

This book explains that logical thinking methods are not universal and that it is necessary to choose the appropriate method according to the purpose of thinking. Specifically, the book organizes the types of reasoning and their purposes in logic, rhetoric, science, and philosophy, and advocates "pluralistic thinking," which uses different methods of thinking tied to the four domains of economics, politics, law and technology, and society.

The author, Masako Watanabe, received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Columbia University and is currently a professor at the Graduate School of Education and Developmental Sciences, Nagoya University. She specializes in sociology of knowledge, comparative education, and comparative culture, and analyzes cultural aspects of logical thinking from these perspectives.

The book has been an exceptional hit, with a series of reprints before its release, exceeding 38,000 copies in five printings in about a month. This is due to the fact that the book has attracted the interest of many readers by offering a new perspective on logical thinking.

Table of Contents

Logical thinking methods are not universal. It requires the skill to first clarify the purpose of thinking and then select the thinking method that best suits that purpose. This book teaches multidimensional thinking, in which the types of reasoning and their purposes in logic, rhetoric, science, and philosophy are grasped, and the four methods of thinking (economic, political, legal, technological, and social) linked to values are used in different ways. This is a book for thinking independently in this uncertain world.

order of precedence

Introduction: Is Logical Thinking One?

Introduction: Western Patterns of Thought: Four Logics

1 Comparative Table of Logic and Thinking Methods in Logic, Rhetoric, Science, and Philosophy

2 Logic of Logic

Logic writes that it "habituates us to think rigorously," but it habituates us to make it clear whether something is True or False, and a side effect of this is that it makes it difficult to ignore and see "the possibility that something is not divisible by True/False."

Of course, it is often useful to think in terms of "How far can we say with certainty that something is True?

However, it can also cause you to feel powerless to deal with issues that are neither True nor False, or to go through the motions because you don't know how to deal with them

GPT.icon

Disambiguation: It is difficult to be aware of ambiguous areas that cannot be divided by true/false and the possibility of multiple truths coexisting.

Simplification of complex realities: it is difficult to see the multi-layered elements of reality and may rely too much on divisible logic alone.

In social and cultural issues, "diverse perspectives" and values are important, not authenticity.

Judgments based solely on a logistical approach may lack flexibility and comprehensive thinking.

Rhetoric focuses not on "what is right" but on "how to move the audience.

The goal is to elicit concrete action and agreement, not abstract criteria of truth or falsehood.

Talk about choosing an appropriate one from the "argumentation types" that have been accumulated over the years, it would be interesting if the AI explicitly uses it.

So this is a profit-maximizing technique, and it's beneficial to be perceived as using it for the public good, not for personal gain.

4 Logic of Scientific Discovery

Rhetoric draws favorable conclusions based on common sense, whereas science creates new models based on observed facts that defy common sense.

There's some extensional thinking going on in user testing.

Based on the observed fact that some users behave contrary to their own assumptions, consider the reasons why this behavior has emerged.

The philosophical position is that human knowledge and beliefs are always fallible and cannot be held with complete certainty].

5 Logic of philosophical inquiry

One of the means is the Socratic question and answer, Hegel's dialectic

He said that in French high schools, students are forced to practice Hegel's dialectic.

The objective of "creating a tool acceptable to the masses" is broken down

What features are needed to be accepted by the masses?

How do we get the masses to accept the tools we've created?" is rhetoric.

Maybe I never thought about this in a clear, separate way.

Chapter 1: Cultural Aspects of Logical Thinking

1 What makes us feel "logical"?

2 Logic and Culture: Value Selection and Priority

Values are expressed in the prioritization of objectives, which selects the "logic", interesting!

3 Logic and rationality

4 The respective logics of economy, politics, legal technology, and society

Chapter 2: Implicit Norms Determining "Types of Composition" and "Types of Logic": Four Domains and Four Logics

1 Know the type of composition required

The question is, "Have you thought this through?"

It's interesting that the format of the discertacion ends with a Hegelian ortho-antagonism, then a summary, then posing the next question.

Maybe a multi-person discussion platform would be better to continue the discussion that way.

The essay makes the conclusion explicit at the outset, whereas the discertacion finds value in expanding its perspective through the process of positive and negative congruence.

It seems that in the discertacion, you justify it with a quote from the classics instead of "what I think," but in our day and age, you could pick a headline of conflict or a quote from the "popular sayings."

It is interesting to point out that in Ensher, first principles are given from the outside and are not subject to criticism, which is spoken of as a commonality between law and theology.

Interesting value of conveying a message without drawing conclusions.

In Iran, people are trained to recall concepts that proverbs refer to without thinking about them, interesting.

Interesting distinction between opinion essays and opinion pieces and essays.

In the Japanese method, the experience is told first, and then the elements come out, which is different from an essay where the conclusion comes out of nowhere.

Chapter 3: Why do we find the thoughts of others illogical?

1 Logic incompatible with the linear argumentation (economy) of "self-assertion"

2 Logic incompatible with dialectical "procedure" (politics)

3 Logic incompatible with "one definite conclusion" (legal technology)

4 Logic incompatible with empathy for others (society)

---