Justification of the scientific method, anyone?

[steve_bank]

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?

By deductive logic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

For example, any mathematical operation with the number zero. It's not the only one. There's loads of them. Don't make the mistake of confusing intuition with logic. Just because you feel something to be intuitevely true, doesn't mean you can squeeze it into a truth table. If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

For example, any mathematical operation with the number zero.

Hey, do I have to squeeze the juice out of your nose or what! OK, so, pleeeeze, explain! What's illogical about mathematical operations with the number zero?

It's not the only one. There's loads of them.

I don't buy it. Again, I'd need examples.

Don't make the mistake of confusing intuition with logic.

I'm certain we have an intuitive sense of logic, so, it's not a matter of confusing the two, it's a matter that we have logical intuitions. I certainly do and apparently I'm not the only one. I would expect you to have them as well.

Just because you feel something to be intuitevely true, doesn't mean you can squeeze it into a truth table. If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

Who says? And where have you been all those months when I was prodding this forum about logic? Haven't seen you much arguing your nice little neat idea here.

Maybe you would need to make the distinction between formal logic, i.e. the one with the truth tables and the one thoroughly investigated by mathematicians, and logic as per our intuitive sense of logic. There, I would agree that our logical intuitions don't necessarily match with formal logic pronouncements but I'm not the first one to have noticed. It's a well known and oft debated issue in the philosophy of logic.

Truth tables assume that logic is entirely truth-functional. "Assume" is the key word here because it's an entirely unsupported assumption and certainly against our intuitions on the issue. It's just convenient for logicians and they have long admitted to it. So, sorry, just because it doesn't go into a truth table doesn't mean it's not logic.

In fact, if you could find me a link to a coherent justification by some recognised expert on the subject that your truth-table logic is logic itself, I'd be very, very, very impressed. A justification that it's good enough if not quite the thing would do. If you don't know how to occupy yourself, that's a good plan for the next ten years for you because this particular story has been going one for more than 2,300 years.

Or perhaps you could try to argue your case if you feel confident you know what you're talking about.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

There's really no doubt we have the same logic as the one the Cro Magnons had. I don't know. I'm sure. And I only need a bit of thinking to be that.

I think the only way you could prove otherwise would be by presenting here a logic different from our own that would nonetheless be good enough for the Cro Magnons to have survived. I'll be waiting for your answer anxiously.
EB

 

[Juma]

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

There's really no doubt we have the same logic as the one the Cro Magnons had. I don't know. I'm sure. And I only need a bit of thinking to be that.

I think the only way you could prove otherwise would be by presenting here a logic different from our own that would nonetheless be good enough for the Cro Magnons to have survived. I'll be waiting for your answer anxiously.
EB

Nah, you have the burden of proof.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For example, any mathematical operation with the number zero.

Hey, do I have to squeeze the juice out of your nose or what! OK, so, pleeeeze, explain! What's illogical about mathematical operations with the number zero?

Because zero is nothing. If you have a set of numbers on the decimal scale and add a zero then it's suddenly ten times more. Wut? There's a reason it took us thousands of years to figure that one out. It works mathematically, but it's not logical. You just think it's obvious because you did mathematics in school. Everybody educated today is litterally brainwashed into accepting it. It's still not logical.

When I did logic our professor would, on purpose, use counter intuitive examples just to force us to think of it as pure logic and put aside everything we have so far learned about the world. For untrained logicians, they very often fall into this trap.

Just because you feel something to be intuitevely true, doesn't mean you can squeeze it into a truth table. If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

Who says? And where have you been all those months when I was prodding this forum about logic? Haven't seen you much arguing your nice little neat idea here.

Maybe you would need to make the distinction between formal logic, i.e. the one with the truth tables and the one thoroughly investigated by mathematicians, and logic as per our intuitive sense of logic. There, I would agree that our logical intuitions don't necessarily match with formal logic pronouncements but I'm not the first one to have noticed. It's a well known and oft debated issue in the philosophy of logic.

Truth tables assume that logic is entirely truth-functional. "Assume" is the key word here because it's an entirely unsupported assumption and certainly against our intuitions on the issue. It's just convenient for logicians and they have long admitted to it. So, sorry, just because it doesn't go into a truth table doesn't mean it's not logic.

In fact, if you could find me a link to a coherent justification by some recognised expert on the subject that your truth-table logic is logic itself, I'd be very, very, very impressed. A justification that it's good enough if not quite the thing would do. If you don't know how to occupy yourself, that's a good plan for the next ten years for you because this particular story has been going one for more than 2,300 years.

Or perhaps you could try to argue your case if you feel confident you know what you're talking about.
EB

I lost interest in trying to explain this because:

1) You seem awfully sure of yourself and doesn't seem to have an interest in learning
2) It was very many years ago I did logic, so it'll require effort to brush up on it, and since you don't seem to be receptive anyway, I don't see the point

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because zero is nothing.

Zero is obviously not nothing. Zero is a number. You might just as well claim two is nothing. Wut?!

Now, you're perhaps trying to say that one apple is something while zero apple is nothing and I would agree there so I'll assume charitably that's what you meant. Yet, your next sentence here suddenly means nothing:

If you have a set of numbers on the decimal scale and add a zero then it's suddenly ten times more. Wut?

Wut? You know, to move from the number 1 to the number 10 you don't add 0 because adding 0 to 1 just give 1, not 10.

So, to move from the number 1 to the number 10 either you multiply by 10 or you add 9. So, I'm afraid your example is just plain idiotic.

Also, you previously seemed adamant that our intuitions were definitely not logical and that logic what all truth tables or nothing. So, how do you square that one with your contention here that zero is not logical. Are you saying this because you have a truth table to prove it or just using your illogical intuition? Oh, well, I think I know the answer to that one.

There's a reason it took us thousands of years to figure that one out. It works mathematically, but it's not logical. You just think it's obvious because you did mathematics in school. Everybody educated today is litterally brainwashed into accepting it. It's still not logical.

There's nothing obvious or not obvious in 0 as used in the decimal notation. It's just a notation and a set of stupidly clever rules that you have to follow if you want to use the decimal notation. And it's perfectly logical because you start by assuming axioms and prove this theorem: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Basis_Representation_Theorem

And you don't seem to realise that truth table logic has been invented, endorsed, applied and is taught in universities by mathematicians. So, it works mathematically, to use your expression, and in effect it's perfectly logical in that respect, but the crucial point is that it's definitely not logic. You've been brainwashed, dude.

When I did logic our professor would, on purpose, use counter intuitive examples just to force us to think of it as pure logic and put aside everything we have so far learned about the world. For untrained logicians, they very often fall into this trap.

If you put aside everything you'd learned you'd need to put aside truth table logic, no? So, what's "pure logic" now?! Truth table logic? This would contradict your idea here of forgetting everything you've learnt. Or is it logic according to our intuition? Now this would contradict what you claimed in your previous post that logic was truth table or nothing. I'm lost.

Just because you feel something to be intuitevely true, doesn't mean you can squeeze it into a truth table. If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

Who says? And where have you been all those months when I was prodding this forum about logic? Haven't seen you much arguing your nice little neat idea here.

Maybe you would need to make the distinction between formal logic, i.e. the one with the truth tables and the one thoroughly investigated by mathematicians, and logic as per our intuitive sense of logic. There, I would agree that our logical intuitions don't necessarily match with formal logic pronouncements but I'm not the first one to have noticed. It's a well known and oft debated issue in the philosophy of logic.

Truth tables assume that logic is entirely truth-functional. "Assume" is the key word here because it's an entirely unsupported assumption and certainly against our intuitions on the issue. It's just convenient for logicians and they have long admitted to it. So, sorry, just because it doesn't go into a truth table doesn't mean it's not logic.

In fact, if you could find me a link to a coherent justification by some recognised expert on the subject that your truth-table logic is logic itself, I'd be very, very, very impressed. A justification that it's good enough if not quite the thing would do. If you don't know how to occupy yourself, that's a good plan for the next ten years for you because this particular story has been going one for more than 2,300 years.

Or perhaps you could try to argue your case if you feel confident you know what you're talking about.
EB

I lost interest in trying to explain this because:

1) You seem awfully sure of yourself and doesn't seem to have an interest in learning

Cop out. You've lost the argument.

Yes, I'm cocksure sure of myself and that should motivate you to rub my nose into my own vomit back and front. Come on! Do it! If you only could.

2) It was very many years ago I did logic, so it'll require effort to brush up on it, and since you don't seem to be receptive anyway, I don't see the point

So you need people to gobble your truth-saying pronouncements whole or you don't talk to them?!

This is weird, man!

Anyway, you're not the first one to come out on a logical limb and fall on your rhetorical nose.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Logic is hard. It's hard to understand. It's hard to explain. If you think it's simple, you probably aren't good at it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

There's really no doubt we have the same logic as the one the Cro Magnons had. I don't know. I'm sure. And I only need a bit of thinking to be that.

I think the only way you could prove otherwise would be by presenting here a logic different from our own that would nonetheless be good enough for the Cro Magnons to have survived. I'll be waiting for your answer anxiously.
EB

Nah, you have the burden of proof.

Oh, Okay, you win. You win whatever you think the argument was. You're so clever, it's unfair, but one day I'll shut your mouth.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Nah, you have the burden of proof.

Oh, Okay, you win. You win whatever you think the argument was. You're so clever, it's unfair, but one day I'll shut your mouth.
EB

A very old saying, 'Philosophy bakes no bread'

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic is hard. It's hard to understand. It's hard to explain. If you think it's simple, you probably aren't good at it.

You're contradicting yourself again and again.

Truth tables are simple and truth-table logic, i.e. "standard logic", is simple. And earlier you seemed to go for the simple idea that logic is simple because it is nothing if not just truth tables!

If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

And you've just admitted you couldn't squeeze your thinking into a truth table, so you're saying your thinking isn't logical. Yeah, I would agree, here, either way.

And me, I never said logic was simple. So, go figure. Bad logic and delusional. That's a conjunction, I guess.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Logic is hard. It's hard to understand. It's hard to explain. If you think it's simple, you probably aren't good at it.

You're contradicting yourself again and again.

Truth tables are simple and truth-table logic, i.e. "standard logic", is simple. And earlier you seemed to go for the simple idea that logic is simple because it is nothing if not just truth tables!

If you can't squeeze it into a truth table, it ain't logic.

And you've just admitted you couldn't squeeze your thinking into a truth table, so you're saying your thinking isn't logical. Yeah, I would agree, here, either way.

And me, I never said logic was simple. So, go figure. Bad logic and delusional. That's a conjunction, I guess.
EB

Your brain is made of simple neurons...

Truth tables are simple? Obviously you have never world on a digital logic problem. The processor in your pc is made of hundreds of thousands of logic gates. I am sure designing an integrated circuit would be trivial for you?

The complexity comes from numbers of logic functions and interconnections.

I know you re suffering from science envy, many do.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Gosh, you're so sweet trying to humour me in those dark Trumpian years. Ah, I can't leave you to stew in your own misery. You make me laugh so it's fair I should try to repay the politesse.

So... What are you saying exactly... Let's see...

You're contradicting yourself again and again.

Truth tables are simple and truth-table logic, i.e. "standard logic", is simple. And earlier you seemed to go for the simple idea that logic is simple because it is nothing if not just truth tables!


And you've just admitted you couldn't squeeze your thinking into a truth table, so you're saying your thinking isn't logical. Yeah, I would agree, here, either way.

And me, I never said logic was simple. So, go figure. Bad logic and delusional. That's a conjunction, I guess.
EB

Your brain is made of simple neurons...

If you say so but I'm not sure I see the connection with whether truth tables are simple. You'd need to articulate your views. Neurons certainly should have some responsibility in our sense of logic but that kind of logic couldn't be squeezed into a truth table as someone recently argued. So, sorry, no, I don't see the connection. You'll have to explain. Try to stick to simple explanations, you know my brain is made of simple neurons. Oh, wait, that was a slur!!! You're actually talking of my very own brain!!! Blimey. You're so engineeringly clever! And here I am with nothing to retort! One point for you!

Truth tables are simple?

Yes. Truth tables are simple... AND gate - output is 1 if BOTH inputs are 1... Hard to make it more simple than that.

Truth tables are simple plots which explain the output of a circuit in terms of the possible inputs to that circuit.
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/digital-logic/combinational-logic

Obviously you have never world on a digital logic problem. The processor in your pc is made of hundreds of thousands of logic gates. I am sure designing an integrated circuit would be trivial for you?

Oh, so now suddenly we're talking about processors. And me who thought we were talking about truth tables... Sorry, I can't remember saying processors were simple. I don't think they are. Wait, I'm sure they aren't. And I also think even a triple idiot would know the difference between a truth table and a processor. So, truth tables simple, processors complicated. Yes?

The complexity comes from numbers of logic functions and interconnections.

Exactly. I'm sure you'd see the difference. Truth tables simple, processors complicated.

I know you re suffering from science envy, many do.

Sorry, again, I can't see the connection. Are you saying science is somewhat like a big dick in between your ears? Nah. Don't envy you here.

And engineers don't do science, most of them anyway. You missing something, perhaps? Hey, these dudes have a bigger one in between their ears, man!

Now if you really find truth tables complicated, no wonder you didn't go into science.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Gosh, you're so sweet trying to humour me in those dark Trumpian years. Ah, I can't leave you to stew in your own misery. You make me laugh so it's fair I should try to repay the politesse.

So... What are you saying exactly... Let's see...



If you say so but I'm not sure I see the connection with whether truth tables are simple. You'd need to articulate your views. Neurons certainly should have some responsibility in our sense of logic but that kind of logic couldn't be squeezed into a truth table as someone recently argued. So, sorry, no, I don't see the connection. You'll have to explain. Try to stick to simple explanations, you know my brain is made of simple neurons. Oh, wait, that was a slur!!! You're actually talking of my very own brain!!! Blimey. You're so engineeringly clever! And here I am with nothing to retort! One point for you!

Truth tables are simple?

Yes. Truth tables are simple... AND gate - output is 1 if BOTH inputs are 1... Hard to make it more simple than that.

Truth tables are simple plots which explain the output of a circuit in terms of the possible inputs to that circuit.
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/digital-logic/combinational-logic

Obviously you have never world on a digital logic problem. The processor in your pc is made of hundreds of thousands of logic gates. I am sure designing an integrated circuit would be trivial for you?

Oh, so now suddenly we're talking about processors. And me who thought we were talking about truth tables... Sorry, I can't remember saying processors were simple. I don't think they are. Wait, I'm sure they aren't. And I also think even a triple idiot would know the difference between a truth table and a processor. So, truth tables simple, processors complicated. Yes?

The complexity comes from numbers of logic functions and interconnections.

Exactly. I'm sure you'd see the difference. Truth tables simple, processors complicated.

I know you re suffering from science envy, many do.

Sorry, again, I can't see the connection. Are you saying science is somewhat like a big dick in between your ears? Nah. Don't envy you here.

And engineers don't do science, most of them anyway. You missing something, perhaps? Hey, these dudes have a bigger one in between their ears, man!

Now if you really find truth tables complicated, no wonder you didn't go into science.
EB

What is French for a wanker?

 

[Juma]

Nah, you have the burden of proof.

Oh, Okay, you win. You win whatever you think the argument was. You're so clever, it's unfair, but one day I'll shut your mouth.
EB

You are a dick. Go fuck yourself. What the fuck are you doing on a discussion forum like this when you really dont give a fuck what other people write? Whats the point? Is your sole intention just to piss on other forummembers?
You make me loathe this forum... all the joy of actually discussing stuff is lost since you refuse to play fair.
Meh. I’m out.

 

[steve_bank]

By the way EB, we do not use truth tables. That is for philosophy arguments.

We use Boolean Algebra, a subset of abstract algebra.

 

[fromderinside]

I, for one, don't think logic fails just because one can't pull an elephant out of one's ass. Logic depends on operational definitions, definitions that can be justified by actual physical manipulations that convince one what was conjectured is so. I'm pretty sure there is someone here who can generate a set of operations for pulling an elephant out of one's ass that makes that proposition self evident.

steve bank truth tables are developed from operations that demonstrate each element in the table is self evident.

The way science is different is that it demands that each operation be tied to something that is already physically demonstrated. For instance heat can be demonstrated by increasing a standard substance, say water, in physical dimension when a specified amount of energy is added to it. Further one can use this process to demonstrate the relation between specific liquids, solids, gases re the addition of energy ( heat) to them.

A rational argument, on the other hand purposts to demonstrate self evidence by comparing objects or other things then using that comparison tro make so called self evident statements. It is self evident that something heavy will fall more rapidly than something light - not a fact of course - since we don't demonstrate that light versus heavy is consistent with that which makes thing fall. We presume that heavy objects fall more rapidly because they are heavy rather than they are proportionally impacted by that which causes them to fall.

Both arguments can be make using the same symbols even though for one argument the symbol for fall causing is not proven. Rather a cheat is made by presuming they are of the same sort therefore what happens to them will be self evident rather than demonstrated, through operational methods.

 

[steve_bank]

Here you go EB, a book on logic you can sink your teeth into. Late 19th century, Boole is a name in logic. It is free. Enjoy.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36884

 

[steve_bank]

I, for one, don't think logic fails just because one can't pull an elephant out of one's ass. Logic depends on operational definitions, definitions that can be justified by actual physical manipulations that convince one what was conjectured is so. I'm pretty sure there is someone here who can generate a set of operations for pulling an elephant out of one's ass that makes that proposition self evident.

steve bank truth tables are developed from operations that demonstrate each element in the table is self evident.

The way science is different is that it demands that each operation be tied to something that is already physically demonstrated. For instance heat can be demonstrated by increasing a standard substance, say water, in physical dimension when a specified amount of energy is added to it. Further one can use this process to demonstrate the relation between specific liquids, solids, gases re the addition of energy ( heat) to them.

A rational argument, on the other hand purposts to demonstrate self evidence by comparing objects or other things then using that comparison tro make so called self evident statements. It is self evident that something heavy will fall more rapidly than something light - not a fact of course - since we don't demonstrate that light versus heavy is consistent with that which makes thing fall. We presume that heavy objects fall more rapidly because they are heavy rather than they are proportionally impacted by that which causes them to fall.

Both arguments can be make using the same symbols even though for one argument the symbol for fall causing is not proven. Rather a cheat is made by presuming they are of the same sort therefore what happens to them will be self evident rather than demonstrated, through operational methods.

Don't have a clue what you are lecturing me about.

In complex logic truth tables are in adequate. I once reduced a contract and specification I had to estimate and I reduced it to Boolean algebra to make sure I had all contingencies covered.

 

[fromderinside]

I wasn't lecturing you stever bank. Just as you note  Fractional factorial design are powerful tools used in modern engineering design popularized by  Genichi Taguchi after  W. Edwards Deming. I used your post as a straw man for sorting out the differences between empirical and rational truths.