The
belief that logic should have a normative role is one that has received
considerable challenges from a number of influential individuals. Among the
most prominent of these is Gilbert Harman, who suggests that the idea that
logic has a normative role is one that is essentially based on confusion. This
is especially the case considering that the challenge that Harman makes is one
that is rooted on the belief that individuals are capable of advancing
situations where they are unable to effectively determine their stance and
believe that they are correct despite the fact that they might actually have
come to the wrong conclusions. Harman proposes that there is a need to consider
that individuals tend to operate in a way that when it comes to considering the
normative role of logic, they essentially bring together two very different
aspects. These aspects tend to be quite apart and this promotes a situation
where there is need to make sure that there is the development of a scenario
that promotes the expansion of knowledge concerning logic. The two aspects that
Harman concentrates on, namely logic and its connection to the theory of
reasoning, are based on the formulation of the theory of deductive logic, and
that of the theory of reasoning, both of which will be discussed in this paper.
One
of the most significant arguments that can be made concerning Harman’s stance
is that he essentially professes the idea that there is a difference between
the logical notion of implication and the way that it can be inferred
methodically. This is to such an extent that when implication and inference are
viewed as separate notions, it brings about a situation where there is need to
consider the naivety of these notions (Harman, 1984).
This is especially considering that there are instances where individuals,
rather than considering the differences between these aspects of logic, end up
in situations where there is little that can be done to bring about an accurate
an understanding of ideas. There are instances where inferences tend to be
promoted as logic and this creates a scenario where logic ends up being looked
at in a confused manner. If valid implications are not the primary norms that
can be sued in the case of inference, it leads to a failure in the provision of
rational norms that can be used for the development of inferences. Instead,
there is an attempt to make sure that there is the revision of those canons
that make up logic. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure that there are
attempts aimed at bringing about the advancement of means through which there
can be the separation of logical notions such as implication and inferences.
The
values of this separation cannot be underestimated and it has to be conducted
in a way that puts into consideration the need to show the considerable aspects
such as the nature of logic or the role that it can play when it is considered
normatively. Harman essentially advances the idea that it is necessary for
individuals to explain the various aspects of logic, because merely stating something
as being logical does not necessarily means that it should be believed (Harman, 2009).
Moreover, there is need to consider that just because an idea is logical does
not mean that logic is an essential aspect of reasoning and that there are
instances where reasoning can take place without the need for reason. There is
the advancement of the need to ensure the idea that reasoning is a more
important aspect of human interaction than logic because it is through the
former that the latter comes about. Thus, logic is not as relevant to reasoning
as is usually assumed because under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to
make sure that there is the promotion of the idea that logic is an essential
aspect of the reasoning process. However, because reasoning is an entirely
independent process, logic can be considered to be a means through which
individuals seek to make sense of the world around them.
Additionally,
a theory of reasoning is one that can be seen as a normative narrative
concerning the way that individuals often undertake to make sure that there is
the formulation, revision, and maintenance of their beliefs. This is especially
the case when it comes to the development of an understanding of the way that
individuals end up deciding which of their actions are right or wrong.
Furthermore, the aim of this theory is to make sure that there is the
formulation of general guidelines concerning the mental actions that they need
to perform in order to bring about the best results under certain
circumstances, and which beliefs that they can be able to adopt or leave
behind, depending of the situation in which they find themselves. This theory
is therefore one that essentially promotes the development of an understanding
of the dynamic events and processes, which can be considered to be able to constitute
reason from a psychological level. Harman contrasts this situation with one where
the individual is faced with the idea that logic has to do with those
non-psychological aspects which have an impact on the way that they make
decisions concerning what to believe. A consequence of this situation is that
logical rules might not be influential in the way that beliefs or any other
form of reasoning come about. Instead, reasoning comes about on its own accord,
meaning that individuals have to make sure that there is the advancement of the
disassociation between logic and reasoning. The establishment of this way of
thinking can help in bringing about a greater understanding of the workings of
the mind because there will be a proper separation between the aspects of logic
and reasoning that end up leading to a lot of confusion. The confusion comes
about because logic and reasoning are often interchanged despite these aspects of
the mind being completely different from one another.
Once
this confusion has been removed from the way that individuals think, it becomes
possible to make sure that there is the recognition of the inability of the
distance between logic and reasoning to be bridged (MacFarlane, 2004). This way of Harman’s reasoning might be
challenged through the way that he sets up the case that he makes use of to
justify his proposal. An argument can be made that there is actually no confusion
between the theory of reasoning and the identification of deductive logic.
Instead, logic essentially has an important normative role to play when it
comes to reasoning, and any consideration of confusion between these aspects is
essentially quite narrow. A result is that the proponents of the manner through
which belief revision take place may feel that Harman’s argument is based on a
failure to consider that there are actually more sophisticated logical tools
that can be used to bring about a connection between logic and reasoning. These
logical tools can actually put into consideration the fact that individuals tend
to have beliefs which are essential to their way of thinking. The different
mental states of individuals shows that logic has a powerful normative role in
reasoning and this is because individuals tend to have different ways of
thinking. Thus, what one individual might consider to be logical might not be
the case with another. However, despite these differences, logic still remains
a prominent aspect of reasoning because it ensures that there is the
advancement of ideas that individuals make use of to better understand the
world around them and adapt to it. Harman’s argument is one that promotes a
situation where logic and reasoning are not connected, but this fails to
consider that logic plays a very important role in the mental states of
individuals. Thus, when individuals operate within a scenario where they go out
of the norm, they are considered to be reasoning illogically, and there are
questions concerning their mental state.
There
are also instances where there is an attempt to capture the various characters
of reasoning where beliefs are not only accumulated, but are also susceptible
to revision. Harman’s stance under such a circumstance is that these formalisms
essentially rely heavily on assumptions that are mistaken concerning the
normative role that logic has to play (Steinberger, 2017). In addition, he promotes the idea that there
are instances where their assumptions might fall short in other ways; a sign
that he considers logic and reason not to belong together, but are rather separate
entities which have to be treated as such because they cannot be bridged. Thus,
even when one does not agree with Harman, he raises a very pertinent point
because the formal models that are made use of in the formation and revision of
beliefs tend to forestall the need to ensure that there is a consideration of
the normativity of logic through its being provided a philosophical account.
The enforcement of the normative role of logic tends to rely too heavily on
assumptions that are not grounded on solid reasoning. Instead, these
assumptions end up leading to a situation where there is a reduction in the
capability of individuals to come to terms with the differences between logic
and the role that it plays in reasoning. The normative role of logic is one
that can be better understood under circumstances where there is the reduction
of assumptions concerning it, but rather the development of a situation where
there is the creation of a situation where it becomes possible to look at it
without the veneer of presuppositions that have come to surround it. The
achievement of this goal could go a long way towards proving Harman’s stance
that the normative role of logic is based on assumptions that cannot be
verified and have to be considered to be a part from reasoning.
It
is essential to note that in some other aspects, some philosophers can end up
questioning the manner through which Harman develops his concept of the theory
of reasoning. This is because Harman is of the belief that the goal of
epistemology is to ensure that it has a close relationship with his concept of
the theory of logical thinking .
Under such circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure that there si the
creation of a situation where there is a view of justification that is viewed from
the first person point of view. The general conservatism, in this case, is one
that offers a principle that can be made use of to ensure that a person is
given advice that he can accept. This assumption promotes the idea that there
is the need to put into consideration the needs of the individual, and the way
that they think in order to come up with an idea concerning their use of logic.
It is a direct challenge to Harman’s way of thinking because he works on the
assumption that logic and reasoning are not connected and have to be viewed
differently. Individuals think very differently from one another and because of
this, they make use of a diversity of logics which can be considered essential
in the advancement of their reasoning capacity. That Harman promotes the idea
of general conservatism in his argument for the theory of reasoning can be
challenged because it involves a failure to consider the connection between
independent and interrelated thoughts that individuals tend to have.
Individuals are not only influenced by the way that they reason at a personal
level, they are also influenced by their own societies, and this in such a way
that they end up displaying a capacity of thought and the use of logic that is
independent of the assumptions that Harman suggests.
The
approach made by Harman is one that, despite the epistemic advice, is primarily
aimed at making sure that there is a highlighting of the necessary and
sufficient conditions that can help in providing a level of epistemic
justification. Harman’s skepticism is essentially based on some concepts of
logic and the methodology that is used using the epistemological approach,
which can be put to question. A result of this situation is that Harman ends up
creating arguments concerning the manner through which the concept of logic can
be applied from the epistemological point of view. He makes an analysis of the
way that individuals in society tend to develop very different understandings
concerning the way that logic works. He is a proponent of the concept of
intentionalism, and this is based on his belief that there is not phenomenal
difference between experiential states without there being a difference that is
intentional. Because of these circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure
that Harman’s concept is understood individually and this is in such a way that
they are viewed through their representational or intentional character. The
perceptual experience is one that should not be considered to be individuated
through its qualitative character, but should be considered through the way
that it is sustained through the experience that has occurred. It therefore
becomes necessary to make sure that there is the advancement of the idea that the
experiential state is one that is representational in character and this is in
such a way that ensures that there is a better understanding of the way that
the experiences of individuals end up affecting the way that they think. The
transparency of the experience is what brings about its perceptual character
because the latter is not individuated. The result is that meditation does not
seem to show the true nature of experiences, and only shows their external
characteristics.
Harman’s
assumptions concerning the nature of deductive logic and epistemology can be
supported through its further development. This process is one that seeks to
promote a situation where there is an attempt to show the manner through which
there is a regulatory relationship between these two concepts. The conclusion
made by Harman that the theories of logic and deductive reasoning are different
means that there is a regulatory link between them and this is in such a way
that promotes a connection between them. Therefore, it is essential to promote
the idea that theoretical reasoning is aimed at making sure that there is the
an accurate description of the world. This is because there is the development
of an accurate representation of the world in a manner that makes use of as
much knowledge as possible. There is also a conscious attempt to make sure that
there is an avoidance of the use of falsehoods in reasoning out the world.
These circumstances make it essential to make sure that there is the creation
of a logical connection between the various states that make up the theory of
reasoning.
The
knowledge of the logical relationships between these states ensures that there
is the promotion of theoretical thinking. This is especially the case when it
comes to the logical concepts of coherence, which ends up seeming to be
relevant. If an individual really believes in something, the truth of that
faith ends up changing to its logical consequences. If that faith is not true,
there the logical conclusion of such a situation is that it cannot be true.
Moreover, in a situation where the set of proposals that an individual believes
in are contradictory, these proposals end up not presenting an accurate
explanation of the world, because at least one of those beliefs has to be
wrong. Harman’s skepticism is one that questions the role that logic can play
in in argumentation. It shows that the principles of logic tend to be related
to a manner of thought that does not follow the same principles as that of other
sciences.
In
conclusion, since Harman makes an identification of the diverse problems that
occur in the naïve view of the world according to the classic logic which
provides an infallible norm for reasoning. The connection that has been made
traditionally between logic and reason is quite pertinent because it ensures
that there is a better understanding between the assumptions that have been
made and their realities. Under such circumstances, any attempt to make a
formulation of a principle that connects the logical principles with the rules
that govern reasoning ends up being considered pointless because it becomes
necessary to create solutions to problems as preventing inconsistencies.
Therefore, the pertinence of Harman’s argument that logic has no special
normative role in reasoning is one that has to be considered essential for the
advancement of a better understanding of the concept of logic.