Justification of the scientific method, anyone?

[Speakpigeon]

What is French for a wanker?

Stievebbennk?


_________________

Oh, well, I guess I have only myself to blame.

I should have known you're unable to have a conversation with me without at some point going egregious. It was you who started this, by responding to one of my posts, pretending to have something meaningful to say, and now you find yourself unable to support your initial impetus.

Show

Impetus interruptus.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

We use Boolean Algebra, a subset of abstract algebra.

Sure, you do as you please, who cares?

Also, I didn't ask you to come in and chip in with comments on processors being so very complicated.

Anyway, so, now you're point is that the term "truth table" isn't used by engineers? Well, sorry but this website I already quoted seems to disagree with you fair and square:

The descriptions above are adequate to describe the functionality of single blocks, but there is a more useful tool available: the truth table. 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

And they do do computer engineering:

The FreeSoC2 is an Arduino-compatible PSoC5LP-based development board, produced by SparkFun in collaboration with Jon Moeller (developer of the original FreeSoC) and Cypress Semiconductor
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/tags/computer-engineering-

That's clearly small scale stuff compared to your life in service of grand projects with international corporations doing difficult stuff in the theatre-of-operation deserts and in deep space but that's still engineering. You should widen your horizon a bit and shut your preconceptions about philosophy.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

OK, no need to get all worked up. I appreciate your contribution to this forum and I apologise for being rude to you. I won't do it again, promise.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Sure, you do as you please, who cares?

Also, I didn't ask you to come in and chip in with comments on processors being so very complicated.

Anyway, so, now you're point is that the term "truth table" isn't used by engineers? Well, sorry but this website I already quoted seems to disagree with you fair and square:


And they do do computer engineering:

The FreeSoC2 is an Arduino-compatible PSoC5LP-based development board, produced by SparkFun in collaboration with Jon Moeller (developer of the original FreeSoC) and Cypress Semiconductor
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/tags/computer-engineering-

That's clearly small scale stuff compared to your life in service of grand projects with international corporations doing difficult stuff in the theatre-of-operation deserts and in deep space but that's still engineering. You should widen your horizon a bit and shut your preconceptions about philosophy.
EB

I get the impression you have never actually read a nook or actually applied logic in any structured manne Your knowledge is from bits and pieces of net surfing.

 

[Juma]

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.

OK, no need to get all worked up. I appreciate your contribution to this forum and I apologise for being rude to you. I won't do it again, promise.
EB

i dont believe you for a second. but that doesnt matter. i have grown tired of this sad place.

 

[fromderinside]

Straight man here.

Wha?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I get the impression you have never actually read a nook or actually applied logic in any structured manne Your knowledge is from bits and pieces of net surfing.

You do make an awful lot of your claims based on vague impressions. That's rather a bad habit I would drop if I were you. Facts should drive your statements here. You're definitely below standard.

I'm only using "bits" on the Internet because it's enough and definitely more convenient to shut your mouth compared to quoting the books I have here and which are generally not available on the Internet.

Still, I'm flattered you take an interest in my life. So, yes,I did read Quine's Methods of Logic in 1992, and still have the book, heavily annotated in my very own feverish hand. I also had a class on logic a looong time ago as a maths and physics university student. That's when I found out that standard mathematical logic was not really like human logic. I was done there and then! Never had to change my mind on this particular point and found lots of people who shared this view, which is good enough as far as plausibility is concerned. I also spent time reading a number of books looking for a justification of standard mathematical logic as compatible with human logic, which I didn't find. I also found bits here and there in various books confirming standard logic is crap, convenient crap but crap nonetheless, like looking for your lost wallet under the lamppost because there's light there. I also worked as an analyst-programmer, if that's the word in English, for a few years, which I enjoyed. I also wrote programmes more creatively for my own use and they work really well. And it appears my brain is really good at spotting logical errors, which maybe makes me the annoying person to argue with you all know.

So, see? We're really, really different you and me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

OK, no need to get all worked up. I appreciate your contribution to this forum and I apologise for being rude to you. I won't do it again, promise.
EB

i dont believe you for a second. but that doesnt matter. i have grown tired of this sad place.

If you're fed up with my posts you should just ignore me. You have plenty of posts from other people that should provide enough interest for you. Most posters here have a similar worldview as you seem to have, although they are generally less grumpy. Isn't that good enough?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

I get the impression you have never actually read a nook or actually applied logic in any structured manne Your knowledge is from bits and pieces of net surfing.

You do make an awful lot of your claims based on vague impressions. That's rather a bad habit I would drop if I were you. Facts should drive your statements here. You're definitely below standard.

I'm only using "bits" on the Internet because it's enough and definitely more convenient to shut your mouth compared to quoting the books I have here and which are generally not available on the Internet.

Still, I'm flattered you take an interest in my life. So, yes,I did read Quine's Methods of Logic in 1992, and still have the book, heavily annotated in my very own feverish hand. I also had a class on logic a looong time ago as a maths and physics university student. That's when I found out that standard mathematical logic was not really like human logic. I was done there and then! Never had to change my mind on this particular point and found lots of people who shared this view, which is good enough as far as plausibility is concerned. I also spent time reading a number of books looking for a justification of standard mathematical logic as compatible with human logic, which I didn't find. I also found bits here and there in various books confirming standard logic is crap, convenient crap but crap nonetheless, like looking for your lost wallet under the lamppost because there's light there. I also worked as an analyst-programmer, if that's the word in English, for a few years, which I enjoyed. I also wrote programmes more creatively for my own use and they work really well. And it appears my brain is really good at spotting logical errors, which maybe makes me the annoying person to argue with you all know.

So, see? We're really, really different you and me.
EB

We are polar opposites. You keep dwelling on simple logic, like a concession. Did you learn anything from Quine?

The Quine–McCluskey method for logic minimization in digital logic is fundamental in digital electronics .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine–McCluskey_algorithm

 

[steve_bank]

The Scientific Method. In reality we all do it, albeit not formally in everyday life.


1. Form an hypothesis.
2. Make an observation or construct an experiment.
3. Test hypothesis and evaluate.
3. Accept hypothesis , reject hypothesis, or next..
4. Modify hypothesis or experiment.
5. Go to 3.

That is it. The method is generalization, in practice can more complicated with multiple experiments and decision points.

What is there to refute about 'the method' ? I Suppose crystal ball and astrology might work better, or some lengthy philosophical treatise.

Observe weather conditions.
Correlated observations to probability of rainfall.
Test hypothesis. Accept, reject or make more observations, modify hypothesis, retest...

Something people did throughout history without science.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You keep dwelling on simple logic, like a concession. Did you learn anything from Quine?

I'm not dwelling on simple logic, I asking simple questions on logic. That's the safest course of action with the sciency types here. Quine just confirmed there's tiddly squat in modern logic as far as human logic is concerned. If there had been something, he would have been one to notice.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

You keep dwelling on simple logic, like a concession. Did you learn anything from Quine?

I'm not dwelling on simple logic, I asking simple questions on logic. That's the safest course of action with the sciency types here. Quine just confirmed there's tiddly squat in modern logic as far as human logic is concerned. If there had been something, he would have been one to notice.
EB

You ask the same questions and get the same answers.

The method is as described. It is generally how humans work at problems even without scince. If you did a little philisophical introspection you would see it in yourself.

'Philosopher know thyself'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You keep dwelling on simple logic, like a concession. Did you learn anything from Quine?

I'm not dwelling on simple logic, I asking simple questions on logic. That's the safest course of action with the sciency types here. Quine just confirmed there's tiddly squat in modern logic as far as human logic is concerned. If there had been something, he would have been one to notice.
EB

You ask the same questions and get the same answers.

Not perspicacious, Steve. Not the same questions at all. Same answers, sure, broadly, if you like, in that they're usually answers from ignorance.

The method is as described.

What method? Read again, Steve, I am talking about logic, not method.

Me, my questions have all been on logic. Method would come in here and there only as a secondary issue. But you wouldn't have noticed.

It is generally how humans work at problems even without scince.

As I understand it, Steve, it is a well-known issue that there's no known method of logic that's entirely consistent with how humans reason.

If you did a little philisophical introspection you would see it in yourself.

If only I knew how one go about it but if you're the expert here, I think I'll pass up on it.

'Philosopher know thyself'.

Go tell philosophers.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

You ask the same questions and get the same answers.

Not perspicacious, Steve. Not the same questions at all. Same answers, sure, broadly, if you like, in that they're usually answers from ignorance.

The method is as described.

What method? Read again, Steve, I am talking about logic, not method.

Me, my questions have all been on logic. Method would come in here and there only as a secondary issue. But you wouldn't have noticed.

It is generally how humans work at problems even without scince.

As I understand it, Steve, it is a well-known issue that there's no known method of logic that's entirely consistent with how humans reason.

If you did a little philisophical introspection you would see it in yourself.

If only I knew how one go about it but if you're the expert here, I think I'll pass up on it.

'Philosopher know thyself'.

Go tell philosophers.
EB

The method you brought up in the op is as described. You Are back to your mantra of logic and science. I am thinking of a caged mouse running inside drum going as fast as it can getting nowhere.

Same answers.

Everybody uses logic inn daily thought and speech. If, then, else, not, and, or and so on. Science is no different.

There is no logic as you infer to the scientific method, it evolved as an approach to problem solving. It is like asking what is the logic to language, there is none it evolved.Not all true conclusions can be reached by linear logic. Human cretivityn i arts and sciences are not reducible to Aristotelian logic.

Is playing a piano based on logic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not perspicacious, Steve. Not the same questions at all. Same answers, sure, broadly, if you like, in that they're usually answers from ignorance.



What method? Read again, Steve, I am talking about logic, not method.

Me, my questions have all been on logic. Method would come in here and there only as a secondary issue. But you wouldn't have noticed.

It is generally how humans work at problems even without scince.

As I understand it, Steve, it is a well-known issue that there's no known method of logic that's entirely consistent with how humans reason.

If you did a little philisophical introspection you would see it in yourself.

If only I knew how one go about it but if you're the expert here, I think I'll pass up on it.

'Philosopher know thyself'.

Go tell philosophers.
EB

The method you brought up in the op is as described. You Are back to your mantra of logic and science. I am thinking of a caged mouse running inside drum going as fast as it can getting nowhere.

Same answers.

Everybody uses logic inn daily thought and speech. If, then, else, not, and, or and so on. Science is no different.

There is no logic as you infer to the scientific method, it evolved as an approach to problem solving. It is like asking what is the logic to language, there is none it evolved.Not all true conclusions can be reached by linear logic. Human cretivityn i arts and sciences are not reducible to Aristotelian logic.

Is playing a piano based on logic?

???

Please, just curious, which particular word you don't understand in the OP? Or is combinations of words? Or perhaps the entire thing? Because you don't seem to understand it at all. I repeat it for your convenience...

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

Another way to put it, can you point out anything I say in there which is factually wrong?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

No the limited statements you make are quite understandable. It's just that they don't describe the difference between rational logic and scientific logic usage. The difference is in the method of observation and in that observation has a logic to it as well as it uses logic to get answers. It's one thing to observe and pontificate logical inferences.. It is quite another to observe, find material similarities and congruences, then use them to make logical inference. Rational logic fails where scientific logic succeeds.

When both are doing the same thing both fail until there are material evidences found for inferences where rational argument has to go back to the beginning and construct a new system of logical construction whereas scientific theory goes back to what is known and adds new evidence to its already existing models.

Its not such a hard thing to understand really.

Logic is more than associations, hierarchies, and relations, it includes method for inference.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No the limited statements you make are quite understandable. It's just that they don't describe the difference between rational logic and scientific logic usage. The difference is in the method of observation and in that observation has a logic to it as well as it uses logic to get answers. It's one thing to observe and pontificate logical inferences.. It is quite another to observe, find material similarities and congruences, then use them to make logical inference. Rational logic fails where scientific logic succeeds.

When both are doing the same thing both fail until there are material evidences found for inferences where rational argument has to go back to the beginning and construct a new system of logical construction whereas scientific theory goes back to what is known and adds new evidence to its already existing models.

Its not such a hard thing to understand really.

Logic is more than associations, hierarchies, and relations, it includes method for inference.

Sorry I fail to see the relevance of any of this to this particular OP, or indeed to anything I ever posted on this forum. So, either I am brain dead and you are.

Now if you think there is some relevance, please provide quotes of the relevant bits in my posts, any of them since I post here. You can work backward starting from this one and go back as far as FTF will allow you.

If you can't do that, or if you just don't want to do it, then please shut up.

Pontificate? What do you think you just did here? You never provide the relevant quote to make sure people understand what you're on about. It's always up to them to make the effort to unpack your charabia. And if you provided the relevant quotes, you might even see by yourself that what you say is irrelevant and choose to spare us you gibberish.

Is that clear enough?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Not perspicacious, Steve. Not the same questions at all. Same answers, sure, broadly, if you like, in that they're usually answers from ignorance.



What method? Read again, Steve, I am talking about logic, not method.

Me, my questions have all been on logic. Method would come in here and there only as a secondary issue. But you wouldn't have noticed.



As I understand it, Steve, it is a well-known issue that there's no known method of logic that's entirely consistent with how humans reason.

If you did a little philisophical introspection you would see it in yourself.

If only I knew how one go about it but if you're the expert here, I think I'll pass up on it.

'Philosopher know thyself'.

Go tell philosophers.
EB

The method you brought up in the op is as described. You Are back to your mantra of logic and science. I am thinking of a caged mouse running inside drum going as fast as it can getting nowhere.

Same answers.

Everybody uses logic inn daily thought and speech. If, then, else, not, and, or and so on. Science is no different.

There is no logic as you infer to the scientific method, it evolved as an approach to problem solving. It is like asking what is the logic to language, there is none it evolved.Not all true conclusions can be reached by linear logic. Human cretivityn i arts and sciences are not reducible to Aristotelian logic.

Is playing a piano based on logic?

???

Please, just curious, which particular word you don't understand in the OP? Or is combinations of words? Or perhaps the entire thing? Because you don't seem to understand it at all. I repeat it for your convenience...

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

Another way to put it, can you point out anything I say in there which is factually wrong?
EB

I understand you perfectly.

You read a book on logic, yet apparently got nothing out of it. Logic is logic regardless of who uses it for whatever reasons.

If Then Else, Or, mutual exclusion, Not, Neither Nor. These logical expressions are the same in digital logic. There is no other 'logic'.

There is a short paperback written by a mathematician called How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it. Then ask your questions.

You seem to be perennially searching for some answer to understanding what science IS, and trying to frame it in logic fails. There is no neat tidy logica easy to understand answer to your problem.

Look at science as creative art. Instead of a sculptor's chisel science uses instruments and math.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Steve, you're delusional.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Steve, you're delusional.
EB

Yes I an delusional, but I channel it into creative engineering doing something useful.

If you do not see science as a creative art instead of something reducible to a logical algorithm you will never understand. There are many who get engineering degrees, not so many who can put it together in a creative effort, Knowledge and math alone are insufficient. Otherwise there would be no engineering, there would be an algorithm..'

Imagine trying to explain what sex is like to a virgin. You can give facts saying just insert part a into part b and move around, but that doesn't quite cover it does it?

I know you have trouble with metaphor and analogy. The metaphor I use for engineering is improvisational jazz. It is at its best a pleasurable group activity, like making music. Your chronic problem is trying to understand science as logic without any experience. Like having factual knowledge of sex and thinking of it logically without having had sex. Sex in practice can not be learned from facts.

Did you have high school algebra followed by college level math?