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're talking to, but you get the idea). On the surface this is a great description, it's enough to make us nod and feel that the matter is adequately clarified. Upon analysis, however, we realize that this view does not stand up to much, if any, scrutiny. What exactly do we mean by “good,” “appropriate,” and “correct”? These terms are quite vague and leave too much room for interpretation, which inevitably leads to misunderstandings. Clearly a more rigorous definition is needed to avoid such misunderstandings. Presenting two possible and radically different candidates for such a rigorous conception of logic are the philosophers John Dewey and Bertrand Russell. Both argue that their logical conceptions serve to free the world from dogma, from being bogged down in preconceived notions about the way reality and the world work. Russell believed that, in the face of his understanding of logic as the only necessity for interpreting the world, dogmas simply did not hold up. And Dewey clearly stated in his book Reconstruction in Philosophy that “to perceive this fact [that of his conception of logic] is to abolish rigid dogmas from the world.” (Dewey, p. 7) Here, however, the similarities between their conceptions end. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Russell defined logic as "the study of structures given by relation." The most basic principles of this conception 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 conception. Russell believed that there exist some synthetic facts a priori. That is, there are facts that are true in virtue of the world and can be known without needing empirical investigations truths simply are 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 “everyone. events have a cause.” It is debatable whether these are truly known a priori or not, but whatever is definitively and truly known without the need for empirical investigation, these logical truths, according to Russell, are the only truly necessary truths the only objective and true tool that we can use to understand and investigate the world. The knowledge 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 compared to fundamental a priori truths, the only true truths. But it is precisely these dogmas that are synthetic a priori truths that lead to the sharpest criticism of rationalism (believing that synthetic a priori truths exist): where do these truths come from? It seems unsatisfying to set it all aside and say “they just are,” which are true to the very nature of the world. Dewey mocks these claims by saying that such understandings of logic describe mathematics “as if it had sprung all at once from the brain of a Zeus, whose anatomy isthat of pure logic”. (Dewey, p. 4) Surely no modern, scientific understanding of logic can make things come out of someone's mind, especially that of a mythical being. Dewey attempts to address this problem by creating an alternative conception of logic, guided by empiricism. (the belief that synthetic unitruths are known a posteriori, or through empirical investigation). Dewey eliminates Russell's universal laws and a priori truths and instead states that logic is a set of behavioral protocols that result in successful organism-environment engagement. Take the “when I hear a buzzing, I try to eat the source of the noise” behavioral protocol. If you're a frog living in a swamp largely undisturbed by humans, it's easy to imagine that this protocol leads to a successful life of eating flies, providing you with the fuel to continue living and eventually producing offspring (the goal principal of life in all forms). This is “true” according to Dewey's logical conception, or as he prefers to call it, this is “truly acting”. It works in this environment, so it's true for this environment. Another environment might have a different set of protocols that work well there and are just as “true”. Dewey believed that all discoveries in science, mathematics, truth, and understanding were the result of 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 took the same frog as before, with the same behavior protocol, and placed it in a different environment, such as a manufacturing plant, the frog could find its tongue stuck in the hum of machinery engines. This is not an ideal situation for the frog, and certainly not one that would lead to the birth of many young. Suddenly the protocol is no longer a success and suddenly loses its truth. The frog no longer “acts sincerely,” but rather “falsely,” according to Dewey. But this seems unsatisfactory. Why should truth depend on an environment? Added to this criticism are some of the conclusions that Dewey draws from his understanding of logic. It says that all thoughts and thought patterns are the result of some problem in our environment, of some attempt to satisfy the organism's need. This makes sense in some contexts, starving can certainly lead to the invention of new ways to find food, and facing a hungry lion can lead to surprising ingenuity in the use of weapons. However, it seems wrong to think that if one finds oneself without problems, all thoughts will simply cease. This goes against our basic intuitive understanding of our thoughts and the nature of their existence. The final, and perhaps most damning, criticism of Dewey's empiricism is the difficulty he faces in explaining humankind's knowledge of mathematics. By what empirical means is it possible to discover mathematics? With what trial and error model? There is no real real world analogue for mathematics, "adding" two things together is not a physical process, but an abstract process that seems to take place completely in a person's mind. We can add the number of moons of Jupiter to the number of moons of Saturn without traveling off-planet, and we certainly don't need to interact with any of the moons to make that addition. If an organism somehow came to the conclusion that “three plus three equals ten,” what phenomenon would occur to correct this error and adapt (or evolve) the protocol to the correct (or true) “three plus three equals six”?.