Back to William's Archives.
Logic:
In this piece, I would like to discuss my thoughts on logic and
logical techniques. Call it whimsy if you wish. It's really thoughts
out of my own background which is mostly in computer science of
one form or another. This will be a general discussion of logic,
not an exhaustive one. In computer science and, as far as I know,
all other science, logic is essential to success. Unlike our mothers,
the physical world is completely unforgiving of carelessness and
error. Thus, we use very rigorous methods in our work.
There are many kinds of logic. A few of us are familiar with the rigid scientific logic found in digital computers. The formal name for this is boolean logic which comes out of a mathematical discipline called boolean algebra. It turns out that this form of logic can be implemented in the physical world with things called logical elements. Very clever engineers can then connect these elements together in ways which allow them to be programmed to solve real world problems. Contrary to popular belief, these elements need not be electrical in nature. They can also be implemented in many other media, including hydraulics or even discrete light.
There is another form of logic called the scientific method which is used to advance science and create explanations of things already known. This is simply a series of logical steps wherein one step leads to the next until a goal is reached, a problem is resolved, or a phenomena is explained. It is a powerful tool for advancing science in an evolutionary way. This is not how people think or how we arrive at new discoveries. It is simply a way of extending discoveries and/or explaining them to other people.
The basic steps in this method are:
1. We observe something and we have an idea or thought about it.
2. We formulate a theory or opinion about the observation.
3. This step consists of designing a test, experiment or set of
experiments which will test and challenge the theory.
4. The test or experiment must then be executed. Sometimes this
requires building equipment or designing a questionnaire. Whatever
is required must be done to execute the experiment. The only output
from this experiment will be information. The experiment cannot
fail for it will provide information. Hopefully the information
will tend to prove or disprove the theory. It may also be inconclusive.
If the experiment proves the theory we go on to step 5 which is
to publish or use the knowledge gained.
Otherwise, we return to step 2 and expand or modify the theory
to fit what we have learned.
Fuzzy logic is given, by some in the computer industry, as a better approximation of how we think. The human synaptic process is not an on off, next step process. Our thought cells fire (so we are told) on a threshold or build-up principle wherein a group of small increments, from one or more neuron sources, is finally sufficient to trigger a next step. This may be true. Attempts have been made to implement this kind of logic in computer software to create what is called artificial intelligence. I am not holding my breath. I think Hal is still in the far future. Some great fiction has been created about these concepts by Isaac Asimov in his Robot and Foundation books.
Now, I can get into my own speculation. Beyond fuzzy logic is what I call loose logic. This is where we somehow open to the infinite, or the divinity, and allow random thoughts to generate themselves within the consciousness. This process requires an unusual state of being. It often occurs on the sleep threshold, going in or coming out, when we are too sleepy or lazy to record the brilliant though. In my case, I try to record but, in my lazy state, I just put down what I think are keys. Later, when I try to understand the keys, they usually appear to be meaningless babble.
I believe loose logic is how all great breakthroughs in science began. Not with a logical process but with a ‘what if' idea or with a sudden inexplicable inspiration. Our psyche clubs us over the head with a gestalt. Some folks think this kind of mental process can be taught, though I don't know of a single case where it has been done. Edward De Bono in his book, New Think, explores these ideas.
There is another process called brainstorming which supposedly takes advantage of the random though process to generate ideas and solutions. This process calls for people, in a group, to express whatever comes to mind in connection with a beginning idea. The rule is to express the thought and record it regardless of how bizarre it seems. The weeding out, comes later.
I have seen this tried in several industrial settings. I have never seen it work. I believe the presence of dominant personalities, which are always part of any group, is what subverts the process. People will say something, then look at the dominant to see if what they said is approved. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes very overt but it's always there in groups of more than two people. In my experience, this dominant is usually, not always, a manager.
From my own experience, I have found that brainstorming can be very productive when only two people are involved. I have even got it to work with three people. I believe that three is the limit, for brainstorming to be effective without a good leader. A good leader, who is open to the method, could draw the less assertive people out. Curiously enough, in 43 years, I have never found a good leader in the industrial setting. Perhaps ‘good industrial leader' is a non sequitur.
Okay! Finally, my media alternative to all of the above is
what I call limp logic. This is where we observe an event or process;
jump to a conclusion, usually wrong, and publish the results.
This is the process whereby the media convinces the public that
a person is guilty before he has been tried and makes it impossible
for a fair trial to occur. Enough said.
Back to William's Archives.
|
|
|
|