A lawyer’s job is not to actually find out the truth, like a scientist. A lawyer’s conclusion will not be tested by a harsh reality with which you can experiment. A lawyer’s job is entirely to convince other people of things. If people are convinced, the job is done; there are no further repercussions if the truth turns out to differ.
Therefore, your lawyer friend likely has never thought about what logic is, or what a scientist does, and how physical reality with experiments is a harsh and unforgiving master, and therefore believes that everything is what he does – i.e. rhetoric.
There is also a distinction between logical and quantitative thinking. Some people operate mainly out of a "whether or not" mindset, and they are not inclined to think in terms of "how much", "to what degree", or "how likely". Scientists tend to be quantitative thinkers, although computer scientists are quite often logical thinkers.
Agree in principle, but I have an issue with your use of the terms "logical/quantitative". A pedantic nitpick to be sure, but the "logical" mindset you describe is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies, that of the "false dilemma" [0]. Maybe there are even better ways to describe it than as a logical fallacy, but calling it "logical thinking" leads down the wrong track IMO.
I know GGP wrote about "computer scientists", but I've seen similar things spoken (even here) about software engineers - that they have "binary thinking", they "reason in ones and zeros", etc. Which infuriates me to no end, because it's hard for me to think of another domain except hard sciences that forces you to think quantitatively, in numbers and orders and probabilities. Excelling in software requires the opposite of "black and white thinking".
I think the stereotype is that Computer Scientists are black and white thinkers, and that's true for some. But a senior software engineer should be skilled at thinking with nuance and considering uncertainties, biases, etc.
The "fallacy fallacy" is valid for itself, though:
> since the fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy, it cannot be used to label an argument's conclusion as false without committing it in the process. "You have used the fallacy fallacy, therefore you are wrong"
Maybe so but I struggle to understand how, I must admit. In case you would care to elaborate I would be interested.
But unless you will argue that "logical thinking" is the correct term in this case I will submit that you have delivered a faulty argument yourself (since you invalidate my whole comment and not just the relevant part). Not sure which logical fallacy that represents though ...
Your comment reminded me of how many people think some tools, like IQ testing, are completely worthless because they're imperfect. An IQ score is not the same as intelligence, so it must be 100% unrelated to intelligence, in other words. This is not what's observed, to put it mildly.
Perhaps computer scientists, but software engineering is almost entirely about trade offs, so a software engineer who can't talk in those terms won't succeed at more than basic levels.
While I find the book to be written in a sarcastic tone, some people take it at face value. Your friend might be among them and enjoy the read in a very different way.
Choice quote: "and if he emerges victorious from a contest, he owes it very often not so much to the correctness of his judgment in stating his proposition, as to the cunning and address with which he defended it. "
