Any serious and popular science forum website?

[Speakpigeon]

Your question wasn't frivolous in your opinion.

Go on, explain to me how my question would be seen as obviously frivolous by most scientists.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Your question wasn't frivolous in your opinion.

Go on, explain to me how my question would be seen as obviously frivolous by most scientists.
EB

This is a great example of why scientists (including mathematicians) find "philosophical argumentation" pointless, tedious, and irritating - a waste of time (i.e. frivolous).

 

[rousseau]

Your question wasn't frivolous in your opinion.

Go on, explain to me how my question would be seen as obviously frivolous by most scientists.
EB

This is a great example of why scientists (including mathematicians) find philosophical "argumentation" pointless, tedious, and irritating - a waste of time (i.e. frivolous).

If you ever want to experience philosophy in all of it's tedious glory I've got a site for you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your question wasn't frivolous in your opinion.

Go on, explain to me how my question would be seen as obviously frivolous by most scientists.
EB

This is a great example of why scientists (including mathematicians) find "philosophical argumentation" pointless, tedious, and irritating - a waste of time (i.e. frivolous).

I had to try but you've definitely convinced me you're utterly incapable of justifying your own assertions here.

So let's just not waste anymore of your time.
EB

 

[Beer With Straw]

Well, I have a criticism...

I cross post on boards too but usually I'd think of saying "Hi" or something more personable. You can run the risk of looking as something like a spam bot.

Plus, I'm trying to get drunk right now...

 

[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.

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

I am not assuming, you are demonstrating. Knowledge is something you work for and earn, not someting you dance and play around with for fun. I can say tyat as a life long learner.

Whenever I was confronted with something new to me I saw it as an opportunity to grow. I'd get books, talk to knowledgeable people. Do research. It pains me deeply that my current ability to read is limited.

The application of logic in any area is not usually formally expressed. There are basic rules of logic, but there are no rules as to how to apply logic. Be it busness, math, or science or whatever we learn logic by expeince, problem solving, and social interaction. There is no special logic used in science.

Sylogysim forms are everywhere, but are raely formarly delineated.

You can't get fluent in a lamgiage without talking with speakers. Logic and problem solving are the same.

Your questions can be aboying on a scince forum because it kind of a trivila question.

So, look at the BB Theory as I suggested , dig in, and start your real philsophical journey of discovery. IMO it is one of the few true jornies there is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am not assuming, you are demonstrating. Knowledge is something you work for and earn, not someting you dance and play around with for fun. I can say tyat as a life long learner.

Whenever I was confronted with something new to me I saw it as an opportunity to grow. I'd get books, talk to knowledgeable people. Do research. It pains me deeply that my current ability to read is limited.

The application of logic in any area is not usually formally expressed. There are basic rules of logic, but there are no rules as to how to apply logic. Be it busness, math, or science or whatever we learn logic by expeince, problem solving, and social interaction. There is no special logic used in science.

Sylogysim forms are everywhere, but are raely formarly delineated.

You can't get fluent in a lamgiage without talking with speakers. Logic and problem solving are the same.

Your questions can be aboying on a scince forum because it kind of a trivila question.

So, look at the BB Theory as I suggested , dig in, and start your real philsophical journey of discovery. IMO it is one of the few true jornies there is.

You still haven't explained anything I didn't know already. And it's just fascinating how a simple and straightforward question should elicit such bizarre attitudes on your parts instead of one simple, straightforward and relevant answer. Your posts all somehow exude some kind of resentfulness, something normally preserved for one's own personal ideological mortal enemies. Just plain fascinating.

Anyway, thanks to all for your contributions and let's stop here wasting all our time.
EB

 

[Beer With Straw]

Eh, for science?

Newton was way before General Relativity but no one doubted calculus predicting the motion of projectiles in the Earth's gravitational field.

Scurry a bit beyond Einstein and you get some dude (Richard Feynman) saying this:

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/richard_p_feynman_160383

That's science.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not assuming, you are demonstrating. Knowledge is something you work for and earn, not someting you dance and play around with for fun. I can say tyat as a life long learner.

Whenever I was confronted with something new to me I saw it as an opportunity to grow. I'd get books, talk to knowledgeable people. Do research. It pains me deeply that my current ability to read is limited.

The application of logic in any area is not usually formally expressed. There are basic rules of logic, but there are no rules as to how to apply logic. Be it busness, math, or science or whatever we learn logic by expeince, problem solving, and social interaction. There is no special logic used in science.

Sylogysim forms are everywhere, but are raely formarly delineated.

You can't get fluent in a lamgiage without talking with speakers. Logic and problem solving are the same.

Your questions can be aboying on a scince forum because it kind of a trivila question.

So, look at the BB Theory as I suggested , dig in, and start your real philsophical journey of discovery. IMO it is one of the few true jornies there is.

You still haven't explained anything I didn't know already. And it's just fascinating how a simple and straightforward question should elicit such bizarre attitudes on your parts instead of one simple, straightforward and relevant answer. Your posts all somehow exude some kind of resentfulness, something normally preserved for one's own personal ideological mortal enemies. Just plain fascinating.

Anyway, thanks to all for your contributions and let's stop here wasting all our time.
EB

Then obviously you do not need anyone's assistance here, as you already know the answer to your question? Attitude? As I said for me this like workday shooting the shit at the lunch table with peers. Nothing profound, just passing the time.

Please, please, just one more post, please. I need to ween myself slowly.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm STILL looking for a serious and popular science forum website...

I just tried Physics Forum (https://www.physicsforums.com/) but they banned me after only three posts for allegedly breaking some rule.

Reason given: "no defined end of debate"!

You may be able to look at the posts to see for yourself how justified that may have been.

As far as I can see, one of the ayatollahs there had a breakdown upon seeing me using the word "usefulness" in relation to formal logic. According to this very bright individual, asking about the usefulness of logic is to irredeemably cross the line into philosophy territory, a definite no-no over there.

So, I'm looking for an alternative...
Thanks,
EB

______________________________

Reference
Here is the offending post for those interested. It's in the sub-forum "Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics Forum" (https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/set-theory-logic-probability-statistics.78/):

What is the usefulness of formal logic theory?
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...theory.946583/

What exactly is the usefulness of formal logic theory?

And how much useful is it?

I believe that most of us have an intuitive sense of logic, which has to be very useful throughout our lives and just about for every situation we can think of. Given that, I came to wonder what more does formal logic specifically brings to the table?

Obviously, having a formal language to express the more complicated logical relations is very useful, even necessary nowadays with the development of technology and science, but beyond instances of using the formalism of formal logic, could anybody give practical examples of using formal logic theory to solve a problem in the real world? Something useful!

And I would exclude from that maths research, not because I think it's hopelessly useless, but because I need to understand how logic theory is useful and I need to understand that here and now. So, using logic theory to help with applied maths would be OK, too. That is, if logic theory is used to sort out a maths problem meant to model some real-world situation, in which case logic theory would be useful to help with useful maths, and that would be obviously useful.

I'm really only interested in First Order Logic, but Second Order examples should also be of interest.
Thanks,
EB

Here is the reply from the chief ayatollah there:

https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...theory.946583/

I have severe problems with what you call useful. This is a short sighted and highly subjective term which hasn't any scientific relevance. Take the zero, e.g. Why did people start to count something, which isn't there? That's why I consider the word useful as a biased, purely rhetoric term without any substance, except to start a fruitless dispute. What you call useful logic, is merely one possible logic system. The usefulness of all other, and there are various, is restricted by our current limitation, not by the number of potential alternatives. But even the predicate logic in use appears quite often rather alienated, esp. in interviews of politicians.

So logic is important, because it measures scientific fields and helps to distinguish between valid and absurd theories. Same as the meter is.

This discussion is already philosophy, because it basically asks about the usefulness of science - logic is just a placeholder here. A sujet, which has been discussed before, on PF as well, please make a forums search, and probably will be discussed on many other occasions and places. There is no final answer to this by the setting of the question, and any answer heavily depends on personal scales.

So if you don't have a specific source from a valid scientific publication, in which case you're invited to send me a PM with a reference, this thread is closed. Reason: no defined end of debate.

And my introduction:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hi-think-therefore-hi-am-an-introduction-to-descartes.946579/

Hi everybody!
I'm French and live in the Macronian world of Paris. I'm a bit retired to be honest but I'm actually trying to do something useful. And, usefulness will indeed be the point of my first (real) post here. So, watch out!

Like all of you, I'm essentially interested in life, but I also spend time thinking about 'philosophical' issues, like the hard problem of consciousness (hey, I can hear you cringe, you know!) , and also about logic. I did two years in maths and physics at the university here in Paris, which was unfortunately a very long time ago, and I had a class on logic at the time. Well, I got interested there and then. For the rest of my life! So, going into retirement, I thought I would revisit the subject. So, I'm working on that, if 'working' is at all the right term for what I'm doing. I may have a few posts on other sciency things but, essentially, it should be about logic. And, yes, usefulness.

After two years, I had to give up on the idea of becoming a scientist. Too bad, that. So, I'm not going to pretend I have any expertise on any scientific issue. I try to keep an eye on what you guys are doing but it's gone way beyond the layman's ability to keep up and understand, this stuff. And maybe I'll have a few posts on that as well.

Ah, I almost forgot. Why a Descartes avatar? Very simple. I take the Cogito to be a beautifully apt expression of the only thing I know. I even wonder how René could have guessed that about me! So, all the rest, I can only believe.

Still, I'm not here to discuss what I do or don't know, so you should all be safe from that at least.

Well, that will be all for now, folks. See you 'round here!
EB

 

[steve_bank]

If over several jobs you always have the samemproblems, maybe you have a problem.

If you keep asking the same questions in different places and get trhe same response...hmmmm...maybe it is you.

The old saying goes, 'Wherever you go there YOU are'.

Perhaps some of that Socratic introspection may be in order.

Apply some of thatb philisophical reasoning and logic to your question and problem, see if you can reason your way to a solution. The door opens inwards as the sdaying goes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If over several jobs you always have the samemproblems, maybe you have a problem.

You've already demonstrated you love to assume things that are factually wrong.

The only problem was with Physics Forums.

If you keep asking the same questions in different places and get trhe same response...hmmmm...maybe it is you.

Maybe, maybe not. More likely the problem here is just you.

What seems clear is you're seriously biased on this one.

And it's not even clear to me that you understand what I'm doing to begin with.

To understand whether I have a problem beside Physics Forums, you'd need to understand what I'm trying to do.

All your posts here suggest you don't. And they also all suggest you're now even interested. Rather, you seem to have a serious grudge to ventilate.

The old saying goes, 'Wherever you go there YOU are'.

Even that isn't true, except if "you" trivially refers to my legal identity. You think I should change my legal identity? Or perhaps just my avatar?

Perhaps some of that Socratic introspection may be in order.

Apply some of thatb philisophical reasoning and logic to your question and problem, see if you can reason your way to a solution. The door opens inwards as the sdaying goes.

Philosophy and logic don't seem to be your forte.

Again, all you've been able to post here are opinions, opinions you've shown yourself incapable of supporting with any justification at all, despite being repeatedly called to do it. You don't even seem aware that's what people normally do.

Obviously, I'm not expecting you to change now. Just more of the same, ad libitum, just o' onanist you.

Your posts are not even about me. They're about you and some grudge that feels too hot inside.

You should know when to stop. Obviously, you don't.

Love to see ya' around!
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Nice try at turning the table. I see another thread on logic on philosophy. A more appropriate place.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Are you looking for scientists who utilize propositional calculus? I doubt you will find anybody that bothers. Basic logic, that is avoiding logical fallacies? Sure. But then you won't find many scientists bothering with modal logic, which is rampant in theological/philospohical circles. Math certainly. And most definitely statistics.

The problem with philosophical arguments in science is the tendency of woo merchants and religious believer scientists to rely on "philosophical" arguments to shoehorn religion into science.
-----

http://network.asa3.org/?page=PSCF

The American Scientific Affiliation, or ASA, was founded in 1941 as an international network of Christians in the sciences. As scientists, members of the ASA take part in humanity’s exploration of nature, its laws, and how it works. As Christians, ASAers want to know not just how the universe operates and came into being, but why it exists in the first place.

-----

I suspect the whole issue has become tiresome to many interested in science itself. This is not the only such organization around. BioLogos and Templeton Foundation for example. And lower down the food chain, the Creationists and IDers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you looking for scientists who utilize propositional calculus?

As I said in the OP, I'm interested in examples of the use of First Order Logic in science, and first order includes propositional.

I doubt you will find anybody that bothers.

Possibly, but that's what I want to make sure. And so I have to ask those who know about that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nice try at turning the table. I see another thread on logic on philosophy. A more appropriate place.

Not really, no.

It's not me who decided that Logic here was still a part of Philosophy. I would have thought myself that like science stopped being philosophy a while ago, logic, too, had stopped being philosophy broadly at the end of the 19th, with Gottlob Frege.

And as a matter of fact, most logicians working on mathematical logic, i.e. most logicians active today, certainly would take the same view.

Still, yet again, all you keep doing here is just ventilate your opinions.

No justification, ever. You should try it sometimes.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

At this point I will be repeating myself for no useful purpose.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This thread made be think of Time Cube. I didn't know the most brilliant person ever had passed away... and that Timecube was no longer on the web, short of an archive.