Any serious and popular science forum website?

[Beer With Straw]

If you want a somewhat relaxed science forum: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-original-sentence-by-me.160748/

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you want a somewhat relaxed science forum: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-original-sentence-by-me.160748/

Thanks! I'll give it a try.

I really only need hands-on physicists with a theoretical bend. Although maybe they would be too busy anyway.

Or maybe that thing doesn't even exist.

Still, if they're relaxed about it, it's good.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Classic EB, ask a question and emphatically ignore the answers asking the same question over and over.

Formal Logic as fraught in philosophy is limited.

Inductive and deductive reasoning is practiced by most everybody, it is learned by usage in the culture. Same with syllogisms. Given A and B, then C follows. In symbolic logic that would be an AND function. A AND B = C. Syllogisms are reduced to logical equations.

One of the classes I took in philosophy was logic. In philosophy it is the study of argument and spotting logical fallacies. That is the real world application of formal logic. Do you seek something more profound?

"could anybody give practical examples of using formal logic theory to solve a problem in the real world?"

Asked and answered, deductive and inductive reasoning, While fiction, Sherlock Holmes represents a real world practical logician. Start at an event that has occurred and work backwards to a cause or causes. Start with causes and conclude a possible event or result. Inductive vs deductive, real world problem solving. In engineering the term the Sherlock Holmes Method is not uncommon.

A car crash occurs. Starting at the crash they attempt to work backwards to the source of the crash. Or they start at the conditions on the road and work forwards to the crash. Inductive, deductive, and framed with syllogism forms.

If you want a tutorial on problem solving watch Crime Scene Investigation, based on a real life forensic scientist. Ditto with Law And Order.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The discussions there are discussions into "serious science" topics. The topic you introduced looks like it would be more suited in: https://thephilosophyforum.com/ where I imagine it could spur a fair amount of comment.

Here is just one post that went through:

B What question should you ask?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-question-should-you-ask.944989/

I saw this problem in Wikipedia in my native language.

The problem goes as follows

You are detained and there are two doors in front of you, one leads to death and the other to freedom. Each door is guarded by one deputy. One of the deputies always makes false statements while the other always makes true statements. You can ask just one question to just one of the deputies (in order to know what door is the one you want to go through). What should you ask?

I did the following: as one deputy will always make false statements and the other always true statements, I can ask any one out to choose one of these options:

(a) I'm a chicken; this door leads to death.
(b) I'm a chicken; this door leads to freedom.
(c) I'm a human; this door leads to death.
(d) I'm a human; this door leads to freedom.

I choose any one deputy to ask this question and if he chooses (a) or (b) then it's the liar, therefore if he chooses, say, (a) we know that the door leads to freedom... the same reasoning holds for the two bottom options... and in this way I can know what door leads to freedom and what leads to death. Does this solution sounds logic?

I fail to see where my post would be somehow more "philosophical".

Given that my specific question to them was "could anybody give practical examples of using formal logic theory to solve a problem in the real world?", could you try to justify your perspective?
EB

Well, it sure the heck isn't about science.

Look, you are ultimately asking a rhetorical question. You don't think the answer is possible to provide.

Why don't you move over to wherever Metacrock is hanging out and get all blissful.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Classic EB, ask a question and emphatically ignore the answers asking the same question over and over.

Formal Logic as fraught in philosophy is limited.

Inductive and deductive reasoning is practiced by most everybody, it is learned by usage in the culture. Same with syllogisms. Given A and B, then C follows. In symbolic logic that would be an AND function. A AND B = C. Syllogisms are reduced to logical equations.

One of the classes I took in philosophy was logic. In philosophy it is the study of argument and spotting logical fallacies. That is the real world application of formal logic. Do you seek something more profound?

"could anybody give practical examples of using formal logic theory to solve a problem in the real world?"

Asked and answered, deductive and inductive reasoning, While fiction, Sherlock Holmes represents a real world practical logician. Start at an event that has occurred and work backwards to a cause or causes. Start with causes and conclude a possible event or result. Inductive vs deductive, real world problem solving. In engineering the term the Sherlock Holmes Method is not uncommon.

A car crash occurs. Starting at the crash they attempt to work backwards to the source of the crash. Or they start at the conditions on the road and work forwards to the crash. Inductive, deductive, and framed with syllogism forms.

If you want a tutorial on problem solving watch Crime Scene Investigation, based on a real life forensic scientist. Ditto with Law And Order.

It appears you don't understand English too good.

Try again with those few examples:

(...) what's in any way philosophical in my question: "could anybody give practical examples of using formal logic theory to solve a problem in the real world?"

(...) what I wanted was just a few specific examples of application of the theory beyond the obvious "premises-conclusion" routine.

Either you have such examples or you don't (...)

And I explained very carefully that I thought nobody really needed any training of the theory of formal logic to be able to practice maths or science efficiently. Intuitive notions seem good enough to me. I guess you seem to be confirming my view here.

So...

Oh well, never mind.

Thanks for trying, sort of.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, it sure the heck isn't about science.

Why ever not?

Look, you are ultimately asking a rhetorical question. You don't think the answer is possible to provide.

Sorry, Love, you're just plain wrong here.

Yes, I thought only basic logic was used, and I was clear about that in my post. But I'm not a scientist and accepted I could be completely wrong so I thought I could ask those on the job.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Last question for EB.

The Big Bang Theory is a well known major scientific theory.

It starts with observation of the universe as it is now, and works backwards in time to a beginning.

In terms of logic is that inductive or deductive logic? How best to apply what you call formal logic in this case?

Review logic and try to figure out which, then you will begin to understand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it sure the heck isn't about science.

Why ever not?

Look, you are ultimately asking a rhetorical question. You don't think the answer is possible to provide.

Sorry, Love, you're just plain wrong here.

Yes, I thought only basic logic was used, and I was clear about that in my post. But I'm not a scientist and accepted I could be completely wrong so I thought I could ask those on the job.
EB

You were clear of nothing but your pomposity.

 

[skepticalbip]

The mission of that site is to provide a forum for serious discussions of hard science topics. The way this is done is to not allow frivolous topics.

The question asked has nothing to do with a discussion of hard science topics. The question would be very similar to someone asking in a "serious philosophy forum" if any philosopher ever eats cumquats while considering a deep philosophical problem - and then insisting that they must be given an answer. Then becoming upset that their thread was deleted, insisting that there must be a discussion of the question.

On this forum, the question has been answered a few times by a few people but the answers were rejected only to have the same question re-asked repeatedly.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you want a somewhat relaxed science forum: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-original-sentence-by-me.160748/

Thanks! I'll give it a try.

I really only need hands-on physicists with a theoretical bend. Although maybe they would be too busy anyway.

Or maybe that thing doesn't even exist.

Still, if they're relaxed about it, it's good.
EB

Thanks again. I haven't been banned yet...

Here is my post there, improved somewhat compared to the Physics Forums version:

Any real examples of formal logic necessary for solving scientific problems?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...ssary-for-solving-scientific-problems.160813/

How exactly is logic used for solving scientific questions?

How much is formal logic necessary for solving scientific problems?

As I see it, most of us have an intuitive sense of logic, and this has to be very useful throughout our lives and just about for every situation we can think of, including scientific activities. Given that, I came to wonder what more does formal logic specifically brings to the table compared to our intuitive sense of logic and beyond the convenience of the formalism that come with it?

Having a formal language to express the more complicated logical relations is obviously very useful, even necessary nowadays with the development of technology and science. But beyond the mere convenience of formal logic as a language, I am interested in the necessity of using formal logic in the sciences.

So, could anybody give real examples where using formal logic was effectively necessary for solving a scientific problem?

I'm really mostly interested in First Order Logic, but Second Order examples should also be of interest to me.

Thanks,

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Last question for EB.

The Big Bang Theory is a well known major scientific theory.

It starts with observation of the universe as it is now, and works backwards in time to a beginning.

In terms of logic is that inductive or deductive logic? How best to apply what you call formal logic in this case?

Review logic and try to figure out which, then you will begin to understand.

You're assuming I don't understand something that you do understand. So please explain what you understand of this thing I'm supposed to not understand.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why ever not?



Sorry, Love, you're just plain wrong here.

Yes, I thought only basic logic was used, and I was clear about that in my post. But I'm not a scientist and accepted I could be completely wrong so I thought I could ask those on the job.
EB

You were clear of nothing but your pomposity.

No substance and factually wrong.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The mission of that site is to provide a forum for serious discussions of hard science topics. The way this is done is to not allow frivolous topics.

The question asked has nothing to do with a discussion of hard science topics. The question would be very similar to someone asking in a "serious philosophy forum" if any philosopher ever eats cumquats while considering a deep philosophical problem - and then insisting that they must be given an answer. Then becoming upset that their thread was deleted, insisting that there must be a discussion of the question.

On this forum, the question has been answered a few times by a few people but the answers were rejected only to have the same question re-asked repeatedly.

Sure, people here have replied and they have provided their answers but I fail to see how any of these answers is relevant. My post on Physics Forum wasn't "frivolous". It was addressing a specific point of the scientific method, not in any somehow philosophical way, but by asking for real examples from the practitioners, and therefore it definitely belonged to "a serious discussion of hard science".

And again, you give no justification for the opinion you express here.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why ever not?



Sorry, Love, you're just plain wrong here.

Yes, I thought only basic logic was used, and I was clear about that in my post. But I'm not a scientist and accepted I could be completely wrong so I thought I could ask those on the job.
EB

You were clear of nothing but your pomposity.

No substance and factually wrong.
EB

Dude, you were banned in three posts. Take a hint or stop pretending. Several have explained the problem and for one reason or another you refuse to publicly concede the issue.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No substance and factually wrong.
EB

Dude, you were banned in three posts.

Reason given: "no defined end of debate".

So nothing like you guys have been alleging. See?

That was in my OP here. Did you read it?

You would need to learn to read before you can start ascribing blame on literally trumped up charges.

And you didn't provide any justification. So I guess you would also need to learn to write.

But apparently that wouldn't even be enough.

Take a hint or stop pretending.

I'm taking no hint. I'm asking for justifications. If you can't bother you can butt out.

Several have explained the problem and for one reason or another you refuse to publicly concede the issue.

Several people none of them with anything like a justification to support their self-conceited opinions. I would be an idiot if I listened to that.
EB

 

[barbos]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-usefulness-of-formal-logic-theory.946583/
I see you used the same avatar there. I think it was a big mistake, because it sure looks like some french philosopher. Yes, he was a mathematician too, but he was a philosopher as well. Your question there implied that formal logic theory was useless. You don't see how some people may not like such attitude?

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-usefulness-of-formal-logic-theory.946583/
I see you used the same avatar there. I think it was a big mistake, because it sure looks like some french philosopher. Yes, he was a mathematician too, but he was a philosopher as well. Your question there implied that formal logic theory was useless. You don't see how some people may not like such attitude?

I grant you all that. You do have a point here.

Hey, I am what I am.


Now, with regard to my avatar, I would hope these people are not primitive idiots reacting like primitive idiots.

Still, I introduced myself essentially and very explicitly announcing I wouldn't do any philosophy. What more would they possibly want?!

And as to the use of formal logic, I was also very explicit. I was asking for real examples of formal logic being used in any scientific research. People have such examples or they don't. No big deal. Just facts and their call, no mine.

Also, I admitted to logic being not only useful but necessary to science and technology. What I asked was about the use of the theory of formal logic, i.e. beyond our intuitive notions of logic and beyond merely using the formalism of formal logic.

And, as I certainly see it, anybody really interested in the actual process of current scientific research should find this angle as very, very interesting.

No luck there.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reason given: "no defined end of debate".

So nothing like you guys have been alleging. See?

That was in my OP here. Did you read it?

You would need to learn to read before you can start ascribing blame on literally trumped up charges.

And you didn't provide any justification. So I guess you would also need to learn to write.

But apparently that wouldn't even be enough.

Take a hint or stop pretending.

I'm taking no hint. I'm asking for justifications. If you can't bother you can butt out.

Several have explained the problem and for one reason or another you refuse to publicly concede the issue.

Several people none of them with anything like a justification to support their self-conceited opinions. I would be an idiot if I listened to that.
EB

Self-conceited?

*BROING*

Damn, I thought my irony meter would be safe outside of PD.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reason given: "no defined end of debate".

So nothing like you guys have been alleging. See?

That was in my OP here. Did you read it?

You would need to learn to read before you can start ascribing blame on literally trumped up charges.

And you didn't provide any justification. So I guess you would also need to learn to write.

But apparently that wouldn't even be enough.



I'm taking no hint. I'm asking for justifications. If you can't bother you can butt out.



Several people none of them with anything like a justification to support their self-conceited opinions. I would be an idiot if I listened to that.
EB

Self-conceited?

*BROING*

Damn, I thought my irony meter would be safe outside of PD.

To not understand that you can't limit yourself to express your opinions but that you should also provide justifications for what you say is exactly to have a sense that your opinion should be good enough for the other guy, and that's exactly what it is to be self-conceited.

Self-conceited
having an excessive sense of one's own importance, abilities, and value

All you've done in this thread is express your opinion and use irony. You think I care?

There, that was a good example of a justification. You should try it.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

The mission of that site is to provide a forum for serious discussions of hard science topics. The way this is done is to not allow frivolous topics.

The question asked has nothing to do with a discussion of hard science topics. The question would be very similar to someone asking in a "serious philosophy forum" if any philosopher ever eats cumquats while considering a deep philosophical problem - and then insisting that they must be given an answer. Then becoming upset that their thread was deleted, insisting that there must be a discussion of the question.

On this forum, the question has been answered a few times by a few people but the answers were rejected only to have the same question re-asked repeatedly.

Sure, people here have replied and they have provided their answers but I fail to see how any of these answers is relevant. My post on Physics Forum wasn't "frivolous". It was addressing a specific point of the scientific method, not in any somehow philosophical way, but by asking for real examples from the practitioners, and therefore it definitely belonged to "a serious discussion of hard science".

And again, you give no justification for the opinion you express here.
EB

Your question wasn't frivolous in your opinion. Someone who would ask in a "serious philosophy forum" (where only deep philosophical issues are allowed) if any philosophers eat kumquats while considering deep philosophical problems would not think their question frivolous. The administrators and members of those sites would think otherwise.