What is logic? The generally accepted definition, or "folk conception", states that logic is simply a set of rules for good, proper, or correct reasoning (the precise wording changes depending on who you talk to, but you get the idea ). On the surface, this is a grandiose description, enough to make us nod our heads and feel that the problem has been sufficiently resolved. Upon analysis, however, we realize that this conception does not stand up to close, if any, scrutiny. What exactly do we mean by “good”, “appropriate” and “correct”? These terms are rather vague and leave a little too much room for interpretation, which inevitably leads to misunderstandings. It is obvious that a more rigorous definition is necessary to avoid such misunderstandings. The philosophers John Dewey and Bertrand Russell present two possible and radically different candidates for such a rigorous conception of logic. Both claim that their conceptions of logic serve to free the world from dogmas, from the bogness of preconceived notions of how reality and the world works. Russell believed that in the face of his understanding of logic, the only necessity for interpreting the world, dogmas simply did not hold up. And Dewey clearly declared in his book Reconstruction in Philosophy that “to perceive this fact [that of his conception of logic] is to abolish the rigid dogmas of the world”. (Dewey, p. 7) But that is where the similarities between their conceptions end. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Russell defined logic as “the study of structures given by relation.” The most fundamental principles of such a design are actually quite easily recognizable to most people with a basic elementary education. Statements such as "X is X for all X", "if X is Y, then Y is X, for all Y and Y and Z” are lines of logical reasoning within this design. Russell believed that there are certain synthetic a priori facts. That is, there are facts which are true in virtue of the world and which can be known without the need for empirical investigation. These truths are simply true, there is no reason or explanation for their existence or truth. Many candidates for synthetic a priori truths have been presented over the years, including mathematics itself, the law of inertia, and the fact that "all events have a cause." It is debatable whether these truths are truly known a priori or not, but whatever is ultimately known and truly known without the need for empirical investigation, these logical truths, according to Russell's belief, are the only truly necessary truths. They constitute the only objective and true tool that we can use to understand and study the world. The realization that these necessary truths are the only accurate tool for exploring the world is what Russell says is so liberating about this conception of logic. Dogmas such as "women must act as caretakers", "some races are superior to others" and others simply make no sense when confronted with fundamental a priori truths, the only true ones. But these are precisely these synthetic truths. a priori truths which lead to the sharpest criticism of rationalism (believing that there are synthetic a priori truths): where do these truths come from? It doesn't seemsatisfying to dismiss it all with a wave of the hand and say “they just are,” that they are true by the very nature of the world. Dewey mocks these statements by saying that such understandings of logic describe mathematics "as if it had sprung suddenly from the brain of a Zeus, whose anatomy is that of pure logic." (Dewey, p. 4) No modern scientific understanding of logic can surely make things spring from anyone's mind, especially that of a mythical being. Dewey attempts to resolve this problem by developing an alternative conception of logic, motivated by empiricism. (the belief that the only synthetic truths are known a posteriori, or through empirical investigation). Dewey removes Russell's universal laws and a priori truths and instead asserts that logic is a set of behavioral protocols that result in successful engagement between the organism and the environment. Take the behavior protocol: “When I hear a buzzing sound, I try to eat the source of the noise.” If you're a frog living in a swamp largely untouched by humans, it's easy to imagine this protocol leading to a successful life as a fly-eater, providing you with the fuel to continue living and eventually produce offspring ( the main goal of life in all areas). forms). This is “true” according to Dewey’s logical conception, or as he prefers to call it, it is “truly acting.” It works in this environment, so it's true for this environment. Another environment may have a different set of protocols that work well and are just as "real". Dewey believed that all discoveries of science, mathematics, truth, and understanding result from trial-and-error evolution or adaptation of these behavioral protocols over time. This is where the central question of empiricism appears. It seems strange to say that the success of a single protocol in a particular environment makes it "true". If we take the same frog from before, with the same behavioral protocol, and place it in a different environment, such as a manufacturing plant, the frog might end up with its tongue stuck in the buzzing motors of the machines. This is not an ideal situation for the frog, and certainly not likely to lead to the birth of many young. All of a sudden, the protocol is no longer a success, and it suddenly loses its truth. The frog no longer acts “sincerely,” but rather “falsely,” according to Dewey. But that doesn't seem satisfactory. Why should truth depend on an environment? Added to this criticism are some of the conclusions Dewey draws from his understanding of logic. He says that all thoughts and thought patterns are the result of a problem in our environment, an attempt to meet the needs of the body. This makes sense in certain contexts: Starving can certainly lead to the invention of new ways of finding food, and confronting a hungry lion can lead to surprising ingenuity in weaponry. However, it seems wrong to think that if one finds oneself problem-free, all thinking will simply cease. This goes against our fundamental intuitive understanding of our own thoughts and the nature of their existence. The final, and perhaps most damning, criticism of Dewey's empiricism is its difficulty in explaining humanity's knowledge of mathematics. By what empirical means can we discover mathematics? By what model of trial and error? There is no true real-world analogue for mathematics,.