Why Logical People Still Disagree
Logical people can disagree not because they are illogical, but because they start from different fundamental beliefs (axioms) or because they reach the limits of logic, requiring different approaches to grey areas.
THE IDEA
WHY LOGICAL PEOPLE STILL DISAGREE
It is important to acknowledge that logical people can still disagree. It doesn’t mean that one person is being illogical, although that might be the case. Possibly both people are being illogical. It also doesn’t mean that both people are being stupid. Logical people might disagree because they are starting with different axioms.
For example, perhaps one person believes in helping other people, and another person believes that everyone should help themselves. Those are different fundamental beliefs, but neither is illogical. In fact, I would say it’s a false dichotomy: I believe that everyone should help themselves, but that some people are privileged with more resources to help themselves than others, so we should all also try to help those less privileged than us.
Logical people can also disagree because of the limits of logic. Once we’ve reached those limits there are many different ways we can proceed, depending on what means we choose to help us once logic has run out. Often it is a case of picking a different way of dealing with a grey area, or picking a different place to draw an arbitrary line in a grey area. If one person accuses the other of not being logical, it may be the case that neither person is being entirely logical because the scope of logic has run out.
I think an important aspect of being more than just basically logical involves being able to find the sources of these disagreements, and this involves using logic more powerfully, to have better arguments.
When to use it
Negotiating a business contract where both parties have different underlying values (e.g., profit vs. employee welfare).
Debating ethical dilemmas where both sides are logically consistent but start from different moral axioms.
In a team meeting, understanding that a disagreement may not be due to lack of logic but different assumptions about the problem.
When designing a public policy, recognizing that opposing views may be logically valid given different starting principles.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Disagreement on Tax Policy
Two economists disagree about tax policy. They may differ over values, such as the weight to give redistribution, or over empirical forecasts, such as the effect on growth. Identifying which premise differs helps determine whether the next step is discussing priorities or examining evidence.
Free Speech Boundary Debate
Two friends disagree about restrictions on speech. They may assign different weight to preventing harm and protecting expression, or disagree about the likely consequences of a restriction. Neither the disagreement nor a short statement of a position establishes that either argument is logically valid.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent disagreement you had with someone you consider logical. What underlying axioms might have caused the disagreement?
When you reach the limits of logic in a decision, how do you choose which approach to take?
How can you identify when a disagreement stems from different axioms versus a logical error?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)