Justification of the scientific method, anyone?

[untermensche]

Okay, he had no map, but he had a terrain, a terrain that would have been reflected by the scientific method.

He needed no one to tell him to identify anything, and he needed no one to tell him to make observations, but at least in a generalized way, he made an identification--even if it was simply identifying a problem to be worked out; moreover, he made observations in some form or fashion. He may not have knowingly been transversing the terrrain (or knowingly been on track and walking in-step with the steps of the scientific method), but anyone looking in at what he did could identify when he was at what step.

He did not have the terrain. That is his genius.

He had these little specks that were the end result of a long process.

And he used them to figure out the process.

It was a unique work of a unique mind.

Not any method.

Nothing that could be replicated.

Okay, I guess the analogy isn't working for you. Let's try this. Is there anything that he did that could be broadly described that could just as well fit what others have done in pursuit of their scientific inquiry?

That is called curiosity.

Wanting to know how things work.

And there is no specific method to do that.

 

[Jobar]

There's a lot of flow charts available which purport to demonstrate the scientific method. This one, contrasting science with faith, seems good to me.



I'd say that observable reality is model-able; perhaps not perfectly so, but we can make successively more and more accurate models describing the behavior of reality. Those models are enormously useful to us, even if they are slightly inexact; what more justification is needed?

 

[untermensche]

That is a part of science, not all of it.

Not everything can be tested.

You can't test to see if there are multiverses or test to see what kinds are possible.

But the hypothesis is part of science.

With something like string theory hypotheses arrive from human calculations and contemplations, not data.

There is no evidence of a "string".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maths is based on axioms. Fundamentally axioms are just things we take for granted for no reason other than we need to have some foundation upon which to build upon. But it's all just stuff we have decided is true because.

There's no problem in maths to shift around the axioms to your hearts content. As long as you make the maths work you're golden. Maths is fundamentally just a game of smarts without application. It's nice if it is applicable. But that's not the point of it. The point is making the patterns work and proving they're true within the same pattern.

The OP isn't about maths, it's about the maths that is used in any current scientific theory. Using a scientific theory A consists in proving that A implies some result B, or A implies some result C etc. I would expect these implications to be essentially a string of logical deductions. Mathematical axioms and scientific hypotheses might be wrong and that's a problem in itself but not the one of the OP. The OP is entirely about the logic to go from axioms and hypotheses to results B, C, D etc. It's about the validity of the deductions.

I remember when doing logic we had a lecture setting out to prove why 1 is 1 by logical necessity, and why 2 is 2 by logical necessity. By the end of the lecture the board was filled with absurdly convoluted chains of logical deductions that all boiled down to that in one way or another everything is better if we assume this is true.

Logic is a game of deduction, which also doesn't need to be applicable.

Sure but here we're discussing the case where logic is somehow applied. The question is whether there is a proper, formal method of logic used and in this case what's its justification, or if the "method" is just the logic of the mathematician's sense of logic.

It is it's own system. But it sure is nice when logical deductions and scientific proofs come to the same conclusion. If they don't, we use that as evidence for something being wrong.

Sorry, you're not making sense here. You start on maths and then drop it midway in favour of science. Sure maths is it's own system but I would assume mathematicians thinks it's a logical one. What's the evidence it's not? As to "logical deductions and scientific proofs", I'd need an example to understand what you mean.
EB

"In favour of science"? Science uses both logic and maths. There's no competition here regarding what is better to use. Whatever works works. Both are useful.

Seems you don't understand my French English.

Maths can be correct AND illogical.

Sorry, I'd need an example of that. I don't see that's possible.

Logic has grown from natural language. It's a tool to understand natural language. Logic is a collection of rules that have grown over time to make this analysis easier.

Sorry, I don't see that as logic proper. What you're talking about is a method of logic. Methods can be wrong. So, at least in principle, a method of logic may well be illogical. Logic can't be illogical. But what you do is logical or it isn't.

Maths can be illogical and still be mathematically true.

Again, I'd need an example. I don't believe that's true.

I know from experience accepted maths can be illogical but then it's also mathematically just plain wrong.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a lot of flow charts available which purport to demonstrate the scientific method. This one, contrasting science with faith, seems good to me.

View attachment 17176

I'd say that observable reality is model-able; perhaps not perfectly so, but we can make successively more and more accurate models describing the behavior of reality. Those models are enormously useful to us, even if they are slightly inexact; what more justification is needed?

Again, the OP isn't about the justification of the scientific method. It's about the underlying logic of the maths used in science.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Maths is based on axioms. Fundamentally axioms are just things we take for granted for no reason other than we need to have some foundation upon which to build upon. But it's all just stuff we have decided is true because.

There's no problem in maths to shift around the axioms to your hearts content. As long as you make the maths work you're golden. Maths is fundamentally just a game of smarts without application. It's nice if it is applicable. But that's not the point of it. The point is making the patterns work and proving they're true within the same pattern.

I remember when doing logic we had a lecture setting out to prove why 1 is 1 by logical necessity, and why 2 is 2 by logical necessity. By the end of the lecture the board was filled with absurdly convoluted chains of logical deductions that all boiled down to that in one way or another everything is better if we assume this is true.

Logic is a game of deduction, which also doesn't need to be applicable.



"In favour of science"? Science uses both logic and maths. There's no competition here regarding what is better to use. Whatever works works. Both are useful.

Maths can be correct AND illogical. Logic has grown from natural language. It's a tool to understand natural language. Logic is a collection of rules that have grown over time to make this analysis easier. But maths isn't natural language and doesn't always follow the rules of natural language. Maths can be illogical and still be mathematically true.

An easy example of math without logic, to me, is imaginary numbers. They explain physics very well...but they are literally imaginary.

What's illogical about imaginary numbers?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

I would start with Geometry and geometric proofs...closest math has to logic (9th grade high school math). From there, it is as everyone else mentioned, the scientific method, when applied, helps figure out what will happen given the proper boundary conditions.

This seems to be your way of agreeing with the second leg of the OP's proposed alternative that "the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic".
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Math is deterministic. Natural phenomena are deterministic.

Nope....just not true. Kurt GHodel busted that back in 1931 for mathematics. Chaos theory and QM also formally and correctly remove determinism from Physics.

Yup. Deterministic. We can study things statistically. Because material things do things that are deterministic, if not by their selves alone, then in mass phenomena. Such as half lives of isotopes. Virtual particles on their own are not strictly deterministic, but en masse are. For example, lamb shift. Virtual particles determine the nature of atoms.

That is just the way the Universe works.

 

[DBT]

Math is deterministic. Natural phenomena are deterministic.

Nope....just not true. Kurt GHodel busted that back in 1931 for mathematics. Chaos theory and QM also formally and correctly remove determinism from Physics.

Depends on the interpretation. There are at least ten interpretations. Some deterministic, some not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Alright, correct me if I'm wrong but so far the few who have actually addressed the OP seem to agree with the second leg of the OP's proposed alternative that "the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic".

That's what I believe but I'm no mathematician so I wouldn't know.

I believe this because I'm convinced there's no correct method of logic available so I would be very surprised if mathematicians could produce so many apparently correct theorems using a faulty method of logic. I also believe this because I know of one incorrect theorem, and if mathematicians used a proper method of logic that couldn't happen at all (unless these people were truly morons, which I assume they're not). So the situation seems consistent with mathematicians using their intuition rather than a formal method. This is also what comes out from the way proofs of theorems are always presented, i.e. never as a formal proof. All these elements are consistent with each other so I take the picture to be very likely true.

Of course, this means that mathematical theorems may sometimes be incorrect. Whether this may become a problem if an incorrect theorem is used in the context of a scientific theory I don't know, but I suspect it could be. Maybe one nuclear bomb will one day explode for no known scientific reason. Just because of a faulty theorem. We will have to wait and see whether something of that nature ever happens or not.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

There is phiisophic determinism and mathematical determinism. One philosophical interpretation is if all causality is preordained. The future is set.

A mathematical deterministic function would be calculating distance from velocity.

Then there is stochastic or probabilistic. In a schostacic system there is a probability of going to one of many next stores. There are stochastic control systems. Exactly when a person will enter or leave a restaurant is not dertimisicaly calculable. A stochastic or probabilistic model will yield the probability. In QM in a gas laser there is a probability of a photon being in a small volume, the Wave Function. The macro scale standing wave in a laser is the sum of the probabilities of a large number of photons.

Toss a coin and it is not deterministic calculate whether it will be heads or tails.

The top level category is chaotic. Deterministic is a special case of chaotic, at least in systems.

 

[steve_bank]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

Feldercarb.

There is not set rules ot logic for invention. Creativity is in part trial and error. Engineering uses established functions, but there are no rules on how to synthesize a system using those functions. It is something you learn by experience. A bridge is designed using mechanics statics, but there is no book on how to creatively apply stairs to a design.

I have seen anyone refer to a philosophy In college philosophy is optional.

The only methods are vague general outlines and approaches. Th Scientific e Method, or deductive vs inductive reasoning.

 

[fromderinside]

Science, it can be argued is a developing logical system. A method is applied that depends on observing, measuring, and testing. All of these are also developing logical systems. As long as added systems increase the amonunt of knowledge covered by the systems these approaches will be considered valid. When, as has occurred with religious systems, deductive systems, and rational systems, new arguments don't yield results that improve knowledge the systems go into decline.

Things may turn out that empirical or scientific systems will fail because mankind has not access to tools for observing, measuring, or testing things. When that puts a limit on the effectiveness or the capacity to increase knowledge using the Scientific method, it too, will go into decline.

It may be that when and if the scientific method (logical system) fails then so too will the notion of using logic to generate such systems.

As things stand now there is an alignment between information and energy as we know it. The question becomes will there remain the alignment between energy as it might be and information when and if that energy is discovered.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Science, it can be argued is a developing logical system. A method is applied that depends on observing, measuring, and testing. All of these are also developing logical systems. As long as added systems increase the amonunt of knowledge covered by the systems these approaches will be considered valid. When, as has occurred with religious systems, deductive systems, and rational systems, new arguments don't yield results that improve knowledge the systems go into decline.

Things may turn out that empirical or scientific systems will fail because mankind has not access to tools for observing, measuring, or testing things. When that puts a limit on the effectiveness or the capacity to increase knowledge using the Scientific method, it too, will go into decline.

It may be that when and if the scientific method (logical system) fails then so too will the notion of using logic to generate such systems.

As things stand now there is an alignment between information and energy as we know it. The question becomes will there remain the alignment between energy as it might be and information when and if that energy is discovered.

I don't buy that.

Science is not something that is somehow "developing". Instead, it is being developed, and by humans and nothing else.

Humans are also the only source of logic we know how to use and so the logic humans use is the only logic that could possibly be going into science, at least for now. This includes the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic, but also any formal logic invented by logicians that might be used in maths and in science, or that is integrated in the computers used in science. It seems clear scientists don't bother with formal logic but they have to use mathematics and they do use computers extensively.

My question, therefore, is whether the logic that does go into science is only the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic or whether any formal logic invented by logicians plays a part (and then which one exactly).
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Take a look at both social mammals and talking birds. Both are developing tools and communication systems as we evolve. Dogs, indeed. Didn't we just have several stories in the news over the past four years on dogs showing capability to understand and use several thousand human words.

If you've studied comparative behavior and biology you'd know there are many species that have developed both their ability to communicate with other species and to have developed quite a number of logics or variations thereof. With humans there's dogs, cats, horses, with dogs there's herding animals, with mammals there's whales and dolphins and humans, among birds there's evidence of language within and between species. Finally it's not just vertebrates there is some variable communication among ants and bees among the social insects.

We're no longer distinguished by the fact that our brain is rotated 90 degree relative to our spines if you haven't noticed so exclusivity is off the table.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, Love, I no longer have time to devolve to your interesting if entirely irrelevant considerations.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Science, it can be argued is a developing logical system. A method is applied that depends on observing, measuring, and testing. All of these are also developing logical systems. As long as added systems increase the amonunt of knowledge covered by the systems these approaches will be considered valid. When, as has occurred with religious systems, deductive systems, and rational systems, new arguments don't yield results that improve knowledge the systems go into decline.

Things may turn out that empirical or scientific systems will fail because mankind has not access to tools for observing, measuring, or testing things. When that puts a limit on the effectiveness or the capacity to increase knowledge using the Scientific method, it too, will go into decline.

It may be that when and if the scientific method (logical system) fails then so too will the notion of using logic to generate such systems.

As things stand now there is an alignment between information and energy as we know it. The question becomes will there remain the alignment between energy as it might be and information when and if that energy is discovered.

I don't buy that.

Science is not something that is somehow "developing". Instead, it is being developed, and by humans and nothing else.

Humans are also the only source of logic we know how to use and so the logic humans use is the only logic that could possibly be going into science, at least for now. This includes the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic, but also any formal logic invented by logicians that might be used in maths and in science, or that is integrated in the computers used in science. It seems clear scientists don't bother with formal logic but they have to use mathematics and they do use computers extensively.

My question, therefore, is whether the logic that does go into science is only the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic or whether any formal logic invented by logicians plays a part (and then which one exactly).
EB

For years you ask the same question and get the same answers. It is said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You seem obsessed.

As I said before there is formal and informal logic. We all use IF THEN ELSE OR AND in language without studying logic That applies to everyday life and science, Formal logic would be a syllogism for one aspect. In real world problems not all things can be reduced to formal logic. Science can not be reduced to linear logic alone.

Logic was not invented, it evolved as language evolved. Over time it became formalized.

Sounds like you have 'science envy'.

 

[bilby]

Again, the OP isn't about the justification of the scientific method. It's about the underlying logic of the maths used in science.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

An easy example of math without logic, to me, is imaginary numbers. They explain physics very well...but they are literally imaginary.

What's illogical about imaginary numbers?
EB

All numbers are literally imaginary; Imaginary numbers just happen to also be described using the specific jargon word 'imaginary', which has three eighths of fuck all to do with the common English meaning of the word.

For some reason people find this confusing.

 

[fromderinside]

For some reason people find this confusing.

Ah, but we reserve the letters i,j,k just for them in maths. There's that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Science, it can be argued is a developing logical system. A method is applied that depends on observing, measuring, and testing. All of these are also developing logical systems. As long as added systems increase the amonunt of knowledge covered by the systems these approaches will be considered valid. When, as has occurred with religious systems, deductive systems, and rational systems, new arguments don't yield results that improve knowledge the systems go into decline.

Things may turn out that empirical or scientific systems will fail because mankind has not access to tools for observing, measuring, or testing things. When that puts a limit on the effectiveness or the capacity to increase knowledge using the Scientific method, it too, will go into decline.

It may be that when and if the scientific method (logical system) fails then so too will the notion of using logic to generate such systems.

As things stand now there is an alignment between information and energy as we know it. The question becomes will there remain the alignment between energy as it might be and information when and if that energy is discovered.

I don't buy that.

Science is not something that is somehow "developing". Instead, it is being developed, and by humans and nothing else.

Humans are also the only source of logic we know how to use and so the logic humans use is the only logic that could possibly be going into science, at least for now. This includes the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic, but also any formal logic invented by logicians that might be used in maths and in science, or that is integrated in the computers used in science. It seems clear scientists don't bother with formal logic but they have to use mathematics and they do use computers extensively.

My question, therefore, is whether the logic that does go into science is only the logic produced by our intuitive sense of logic or whether any formal logic invented by logicians plays a part (and then which one exactly).
EB

For years you ask the same question and get the same answers. It is said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You seem obsessed.

As I said before there is formal and informal logic. We all use IF THEN ELSE OR AND in language without studying logic That applies to everyday life and science, Formal logic would be a syllogism for one aspect. In real world problems not all things can be reduced to formal logic. Science can not be reduced to linear logic alone.

Logic was not invented, it evolved as language evolved. Over time it became formalized.

Sounds like you have 'science envy'.

Sorry, I can't make head or tail of your rambling. Logic didn't evolve with language because there's really no doubt we have the same logic as the one the Cro Magnons had. And if something was indeed invented, if was formal logic, and this one did evolve, and as a niche interest lobby within our highly linguistified civilisation it indeed evolved as language evolved. Is that what you meant?!

Science envy? Laugh. I initially tried to go into the science business but was derailed by life. And I don't regret it now.

I pity most scientists. Science without conscience...

People like Einstein, Newton, Galileo and all those luminaries were not just scientists and they were not autistic. Unfortunately, those are very few compared to the autistic ones.

Truth is, I'm the only one that can be myself but it nonetheless feels really like some very obscene good fortune. I have to stay incognito for fear somebody tried to swap with me.

You're still stalking, Love. I'm going to tip the police.
EB

 

[Juma]

For years you ask the same question and get the same answers. It is said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You seem obsessed.

As I said before there is formal and informal logic. We all use IF THEN ELSE OR AND in language without studying logic That applies to everyday life and science, Formal logic would be a syllogism for one aspect. In real world problems not all things can be reduced to formal logic. Science can not be reduced to linear logic alone.

Logic was not invented, it evolved as language evolved. Over time it became formalized.

Sounds like you have 'science envy'.

Sorry, I can't make head or tail of your rambling. Logic didn't evolve with language because there's really no doubt we have the same logic as the one the Cro Magnons had. And if something was indeed invented, if was formal logic, and this one did evolve, and as a niche interest lobby within our highly linguistified civilisation it indeed evolved as language evolved. Is that what you meant?!

Science envy? Laugh. I initially tried to go into the science business but was derailed by life. And I don't regret it now.

I pity most scientists. Science without conscience...

People like Einstein, Newton, Galileo and all those luminaries were not just scientists and they were not autistic. Unfortunately, those are very few compared to the autistic ones.

Truth is, I'm the only one that can be myself but it nonetheless feels really like some very obscene good fortune. I have to stay incognito for fear somebody tried to swap with me.

You're still stalking, Love. I'm going to tip the police.
EB

How do you know that we have the same logic as cro magnon?
Seriously! How can you be sure of that?