|
Post by 1dave on Apr 3, 2021 9:56:21 GMT -5
"As a man thinketh so is he." Do both of these words mean exactly the same thing or are they different? At present I see "analytical" as being more hands on experimental, whereas "logical" is simply cogitating. "That car is blue. That thing over there is blue, therefore it is a car." Logical can get way more wrong than analytical. Am I wrong?
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Apr 3, 2021 11:05:35 GMT -5
"As a man thinketh so is he." Do both of these words mean exactly the same thing or are they different? At present I see "analytical" as being more hands on experimental, whereas "logical" is simply cogitating. "That car is blue. That thing over there is blue, therefore it is a car." Logical can get way more wrong than analytical. Am I wrong? No, you are not wrong........but logical conclusions are not the same for everyone.........as with reality, which is not the same for everyone.
Analytical = to analyze
Logical = using logic
To analyze = breaking down or deconstructing in order to draw a conclusion. Using logic = is part of the critical thinking process required to analyze.
Some refer to the seven aspects of critical thinking (logic) to include....observation, analysis, interpretation, reflection, evaluation, inference, explanation, problem solving, and decision making.
I'm not sure I analyzed this question properly, but I used logic to come to a conclusion......which/that is my conclusive reality.......lol
Now, how do those relate to cognitive skills.........?
|
|
|
Post by opalpyrexia on Apr 3, 2021 11:10:19 GMT -5
"That car is blue. That thing over there is blue, therefore it is a car." Logical can get way more wrong than analytical. Am I wrong?
Difficult to tell. Methinks your blue analogy is a bit of a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Apr 3, 2021 13:41:30 GMT -5
As I recall ancient scientists would sit around and discuss how things were, then came to a conclusion.
To actually LOOK IN A HORSES MOUTH to see how many teeth there were was unseemly and ungentle.
For TRUE ENLIGHTENMENT LOGIC ALONE HELD SWAY.
|
|
wpotterw
spending too much on rocks
Member since September 2016
Posts: 421
|
Post by wpotterw on Apr 3, 2021 16:28:53 GMT -5
"That car is blue. That thing over there is blue, therefore it is a car." Logical can get way more wrong than analytical. Am I wrong?
Difficult to tell. Methinks your blue analogy is a bit of a red herring.
Suggest you enlist the services of Heinlein's Fair Witness... The profession of Fair Witness, invented for the novel, has been cited in such varied contexts as environmentalism,[21] psychology,[22] technology,[23] digital signatures,[24] and science,[25] as well as in books on leadership[26] and Sufism.[27] A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what is seen and heard, making no extrapolations or assumptions. While wearing the Fair Witness uniform of a white robe, they are presumed to be observing and opining in their professional capacity.[28] Works that refer to the Fair Witness emphasize the profession's impartiality, integrity, objectivity, and reliability.[29][30] An example from the book illustrates the role of Fair Witness when Anne is asked what color a house is. She answers, "It's white on this side." The character Jubal then explains, "You see? It doesn’t occur to Anne to infer that the other side is white, too. All the King’s horses couldn’t force her to commit herself... unless she went there and looked – and even then she wouldn’t assume that it stayed white after she left.”[28]
|
|
|
Post by opalpyrexia on Apr 3, 2021 19:22:03 GMT -5
Difficult to tell. Methinks your blue analogy is a bit of a red herring.
Suggest you enlist the services of Heinlein's Fair Witness... The profession of Fair Witness, invented for the novel, has been cited in such varied contexts as environmentalism,[21] psychology,[22] technology,[23] digital signatures,[24] and science,[25] as well as in books on leadership[26] and Sufism.[27] A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what is seen and heard, making no extrapolations or assumptions. While wearing the Fair Witness uniform of a white robe, they are presumed to be observing and opining in their professional capacity.[28] Works that refer to the Fair Witness emphasize the profession's impartiality, integrity, objectivity, and reliability.[29][30] ...
The witness in 1dave's example is clearly not a Fair Witness, for a Fair Witness would have simply stated, "That car is blue. That thing over there is blue."
The original example is ambiguous with respect to analysis or logic. We can infer that 1Dave used it as an example of logic, but it works equally well as an example of analysis. We can also infer (logically(lol) ) that the individual clearly knows nothing about cars. What is not clear is whether the second statement ("That thing over there is blue, therefore it is a car.") is the result of logic or analysis.
|
|
|
Post by stardiamond on Apr 3, 2021 23:20:09 GMT -5
My definitions. analytical - studying something and reaching a conclusion logical - following a proscribed methodology
I was a systems analyst that did computer programming. Analysis involved trying to solve a problem. A logical analysis should produce a diagram that explains what was done.
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Apr 4, 2021 9:02:31 GMT -5
Ah but often are we not logically dealing without all the facts, thus building castles of ideas without foundations?
|
|
|
Post by stardiamond on Apr 4, 2021 11:12:49 GMT -5
I looked up the definition of logic. 'Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.'
That brings up process vs methodology. I view logic as a methodology and you are describing it as a process. Using logic the methodology can be solid but the execution is flawed.
I was in a recent forum discussion on statistics which can be a process or data. The process is science but the data interpretation is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by opalpyrexia on Apr 4, 2021 19:47:24 GMT -5
When I first read the title of this discussion, "Analytical VS Logical", it brought back good memories of a high school analytical chemistry class. When we approached the end of the semester our teacher, who we loved, passed out little bags containing various powders to each of us. He said that we were holding our final exam, that they were all different, that we would get no additional amount, and that we had the rest of the week to determine exactly what our substances were.
Stress and panic ensued. No amount of logic by itself would have saved any of us, although failing to follow a logical sequence of analytical tests risked failure. Once we got to work the butterflies settled down and I think that most, if not nearly all of us. were successful. I don't remember what my sample was.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Apr 4, 2021 22:32:31 GMT -5
I looked up the definition of logic. 'Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.' That brings up process vs methodology. I view logic as a methodology and you are describing it as a process. Using logic the methodology can be solid but the execution is flawed. I was in a recent forum discussion on statistics which can be a process or data. The process is science but the data interpretation is subjective. Logic and Logical seldom ever mean the same thing......as one has discovered. Using "strict principles of validity" are not always the most logical approach to reasoning (ie....) understanding human nature.....As Alexander Pope tried to express.
|
|