Logic & Science

[Speakpigeon]

Dear all,

Happy New Year and good health to you and your pets despite all those dangers looming close by.

Now, I have been thinking a lot about logic recently (I'm hopping it could help save the world) and it occurred to me that its status is somewhat fudgy. On the one hand, scientific theories are dependent on logic so scientists probably wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, I don't see how the principles of logic could be construed as evidence-based and therefore I wonder how scientists could possibly feel justified using logic at all.

One way to solve the problem would be to explain logic as a property of the material world. Personally, I tend to think of logic as a property of the human mind but that would be no good for hardcore materialists, right? It could perhaps be argued, and I could in fact agree, that logic is really a property of the brain, but that would be essentially speculative at this stage. We would really need to know a lot more about the brain than we do today to be able to prove that conclusively.

So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Basic logic works. That is why it is valued by scientists.

 

[fast]

Dear all,

Happy New Year and good health to you and your pets despite all those dangers looming close by.

Now, I have been thinking a lot about logic recently (I'm hopping it could help save the world) and it occurred to me that its status is somewhat fudgy. On the one hand, scientific theories are dependent on logic so scientists probably wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, I don't see how the principles of logic could be construed as evidence-based and therefore I wonder how scientists could possibly feel justified using logic at all.

One way to solve the problem would be to explain logic as a property of the material world. Personally, I tend to think of logic as a property of the human mind but that would be no good for hardcore materialists, right? It could perhaps be argued, and I could in fact agree, that logic is really a property of the brain, but that would be essentially speculative at this stage. We would really need to know a lot more about the brain than we do today to be able to prove that conclusively.

So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

I'll give it a shot.

It seems to me that logic is an abstraction.
It seems to me that an abstraction is the product of our human ability to conceptualize.
It seems to me that physical processes of the brain and central nervous system enables our ability to conceptualize.
It seems to me that our brain and central nervous system is made of material components of the world in which we live.

 

[Juma]

Evolution. We have evolved to make good models of the our milieu. Remember that logic as a whole is tautologic.it works because that is how we reason. The russel paradoxes lets us feel the boundaries of our logic.
Maybe a with help of computer we could construct an entity that uses a better logic...

 

[Valjean]

Logic isn't reason. Logic is algebra, it evaluates relationships between premises and the validity of conclusions.
The truth of the premises is independent of the logical processes applied.
Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Basic logic works.

My subjective experience seems to works remarkably well too but it doesn't mean I can explain how it is a product of my material brain.

Plus, I'm not sure what you call "basic logic" here. Is it basic logic as per our intuition or is it the kind of sophisticated logic described in formal logic textbooks in all universities around the world?

That is why it is valued by scientists.

And I agree with them but I'm sure you'd agree that the world works pretty good too and while I'm sure it's valued by scientists as such the fact is they are nonetheless expending a lot of effort and money to explain it in materialistic terms.

So, I guess my question is just as legitimate.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Dear all,

Happy New Year and good health to you and your pets despite all those dangers looming close by.

Now, I have been thinking a lot about logic recently (I'm hopping it could help save the world) and it occurred to me that its status is somewhat fudgy. On the one hand, scientific theories are dependent on logic so scientists probably wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, I don't see how the principles of logic could be construed as evidence-based and therefore I wonder how scientists could possibly feel justified using logic at all.

One way to solve the problem would be to explain logic as a property of the material world. Personally, I tend to think of logic as a property of the human mind but that would be no good for hardcore materialists, right? It could perhaps be argued, and I could in fact agree, that logic is really a property of the brain, but that would be essentially speculative at this stage. We would really need to know a lot more about the brain than we do today to be able to prove that conclusively.

So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

I'll give it a shot.

It seems to me that logic is an abstraction.
It seems to me that an abstraction is the product of our human ability to conceptualize.
It seems to me that physical processes of the brain and central nervous system enables our ability to conceptualize.
It seems to me that our brain and central nervous system is made of material components of the world in which we live.

That's a nice but very general justification that logic must be based on the material world, and again, I could agree with that. However, that does not necessarily tell scientists what are the actual rules they should accept for logical calculus and that seems to be a rather crucial point. I can give a non-materialist justification for logical rules: a and b is true if both a and b are true because that's what my intuition says and if logic is a property of my mind my intuition is certainly good enough to tell me what the rules of logic are.
However, I'd like to see how a materialist would try to justify in materialist terms the rule that a and b is true if both a and b are true and false if any of a and b is false.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Evolution. We have evolved to make good models of the our milieu.

Sure but it's a general justification for why logic must be regarded as based on material properties. I would like to see a justification in materialist terms of the actual rules of logic, e.g. why in materialist terms a and b is true only if both a and b are true.

Remember that logic as a whole is tautologic.it works because that is how we reason.

Are you saying that the rules of logic are arbitrary and that any system of rules would work as long as we would all abide by it?

The russel paradoxes lets us feel the boundaries of our logic.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I accept that the paradoxes of the material implication, if that's what you have in mind, is a limit in Russell's theory but I don't see why I should feel that my use of logic, or anybody else's, should be bounded by Russell's views.

Perhaps you think that scientists follow Russell's system of logic. That may be true but I don't have any indication that this is the case. I suspect that the kind of logic scientists use is more in line with syllogistic logic. Basicaly, I think they follow their intuition and never open a textbook on logic. I used to write computer programmes and I'm quite sure I never had to refer to any formal logic textbook to work out the logic of my programmes. I also don't think many scientists would include any reference to logic textbooks in their scientific papers.

Maybe a with help of computer we could construct an entity that uses a better logic...

There is already an army of logicians around the world who are working on this and I don't see how using a computer could help. Rather, they would need to use their brain more effectively.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe a with help of computer we could construct an entity that uses a better logic...

There is already an army of logicians around the world who are working on this and I don't see how using a computer could help. Rather, they would need to use their brain more effectively.
EB

Check out Nvidia Pascal CUDA production compared to that of Intel CORE.

 

[Juma]

I would like to see a justification in materialist terms of the actual rules of logic, e.g. why in materialist terms a and b is true only if both a and b are true.

Why is a certain computerprogram developed by evolutionsry principles working in a certain way? "Because the bits is structuredas they are toaccomplish what it does"

 

[Random Person]

Logic isn't reason. Logic is algebra, it evaluates relationships between premises and the validity of conclusions.
The truth of the premises is independent of the logical processes applied.
Garbage in, garbage out.

That sounds pretty close.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

How about this: Logic is that which describes a system in the way that produces the least conflict. That, I think, is the way the brain produces logic. But it's also basically how nature evolves.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think one can argue logic provides a minimum or optimum result.

My example is the failure of logical positivism as philosophy. My arguments are the rise if existentialism and deconstructionism.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic isn't reason. Logic is algebra, it evaluates relationships between premises and the validity of conclusions.
The truth of the premises is independent of the logical processes applied.
Garbage in, garbage out.

That sounds pretty close.

Then you're both missing the point that logic is still necessary. I have to agree of course that logic is not sufficient but it still is necessary. Necessary to science, among other disciplines.

So, my question remains, how do you justify the use of logic in science?
EB

- - - Updated - - -

I would like to see a justification in materialist terms of the actual rules of logic, e.g. why in materialist terms a and b is true only if both a and b are true.

Why is a certain computerprogram developed by evolutionsry principles working in a certain way? "Because the bits is structuredas they are toaccomplish what it does"

Sorry I can't unpack the gibberish.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

...
So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

How about this: Logic is that which describes a system in the way that produces the least conflict. That, I think, is the way the brain produces logic. But it's also basically how nature evolves.

That's an idea but the system which would produce the least conflict would produce no conflict at all, yet in logic, there is contradiction, which sounds like a conflict to me. So, why would we need contradictions at all? What would make them necessary in materialistic terms?
EB

 

[Treedbear]

How about this: Logic is that which describes a system in the way that produces the least conflict. That, I think, is the way the brain produces logic. But it's also basically how nature evolves.

That's an idea but the system which would produce the least conflict would produce no conflict at all, yet in logic, there is contradiction, which sounds like a conflict to me. So, why would we need contradictions at all? What would make them necessary in materialistic terms?
EB

Why complicate the matter by trying to accommodate some idealistic condition? I think it's sufficient that the brain tries to minimize contradiction. In nature contradiction is manifest as conflict. In terms of evolving systems it comes down to the same thing. Contradictions are necessary because in order to exist something needs to survive. Logic eventually reduces to the proposition "How could it be otherwise?". That's good enough for me.

 

[Random Person]

That sounds pretty close.

Then you're both missing the point that logic is still necessary. I have to agree of course that logic is not sufficient but it still is necessary. Necessary to science, among other disciplines.

So, my question remains, how do you justify the use of logic in science?
EB

I don't know how you got the idea that we thought that logic wasn't necessary.

I'm confused about your claim that your question remains. I was responding to this query but to the one in the OP.

I don't think logic is a property of the material world. I think it is an organized thought pattern that helps us arrive at conclusion, tentative as they may be,

So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's an idea but the system which would produce the least conflict would produce no conflict at all, yet in logic, there is contradiction, which sounds like a conflict to me. So, why would we need contradictions at all? What would make them necessary in materialistic terms?
EB

Why complicate the matter by trying to accommodate some idealistic condition?

Sorry, your answer doesn't make sense to me. What idealistic condition? I'm asking for a materialist explanation to the use of logic in science.

I think it's sufficient that the brain tries to minimize contradiction.

Why would the brain use contradiction at all when it could do without it if minimising is the idea.

In nature contradiction is manifest as conflict.

A contradiction in logic would be for example: "There's a bear inside that cave (I can see one)" and "Bears can't get into that cave (the entry to the cave is too small for any bear". How do you figure this contradiction would be manifest as a conflict?

In terms of evolving systems it comes down to the same thing.

???

Contradictions are necessary because in order to exist something needs to survive.

So how the contradiction I just provided would be necessary for survival?

Logic eventually reduces to the proposition "How could it be otherwise?". That's good enough for me.

In Quantum Physics, if an electron is detected at some location the theory says there was only a certain probability that it should have been found there. That it would have been found somewhere else had a prior probability too. In the multiverse interpretation, the electron is effectively found in different places in "parallel histories". So, one could argue that not only it could have been otherwise from what it is but, according to this interpretation, it is effectively otherwise. Or, maybe not but that would require some explaining.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

Why complicate the matter by trying to accommodate some idealistic condition?

Sorry, your answer doesn't make sense to me. What idealistic condition? I'm asking for a materialist explanation to the use of logic in science.

The ideal condtion in your prior response:

... the system which would produce the least conflict would produce no conflict at all, ...

It would be impossible to eliminate all conflict and expect to adapt to changing circumstances.

I think it's sufficient that the brain tries to minimize contradiction.

Why would the brain use contradiction at all when it could do without it if minimising is the idea.

A famous scientist once said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Since perfect understanding is usually beyond our abilities contradictions are bound to arise with experience. And just dumbing things down to minimize conflict isn't a long term solution. It leads to even larger conflicts.

In nature contradiction is manifest as conflict.

A contradiction in logic would be for example: "There's a bear inside that cave (I can see one)" and "Bears can't get into that cave (the entry to the cave is too small for any bear". How do you figure this contradiction would be manifest as a conflict?

The contradiction exists within the brain (ok, the mind if you like). Actually if we view the brain as an ecosystem you would call it a conflict between the function of perceiving the bear in the cave and the model of a cave having an entrance perceived as too small to enter. One or the other must prevail or there is continued conflict uncertainty and anxiety.

In terms of evolving systems it comes down to the same thing.

???

Contradiction leads to conflict within the brain as well as in the natural world. Just trying to explain how the terms describe the same thing within different context, vis-a-vis brains vs the natural world.

Contradictions are necessary because in order to exist something needs to survive.

So how the contradiction I just provided would be necessary for survival?

Since the contradiction in this case is within the mind it impacts one's ability to make sense of the world and make an appropriate response.

Logic eventually reduces to the proposition "How could it be otherwise?". That's good enough for me.

In Quantum Physics, if an electron is detected at some location the theory says there was only a certain probability that it should have been found there. That it would have been found somewhere else had a prior probability too. In the multiverse interpretation, the electron is effectively found in different places in "parallel histories". So, one could argue that not only it could have been otherwise from what it is but, according to this interpretation, it is effectively otherwise. Or, maybe not but that would require some explaining.
EB

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." So we have a contradiction which leads to lots of argumentation and disbelief and conflict. And someday, perhaps, understanding. So far, not so much.

 

[Business]

Oxford definition of "logic".

Logic
noun
1 Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principals of validity.
1.3 The quality of being justifiable by reason.

Oxford definition of "science".

Science
noun
1 The intellecual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific Method Visualized

So, meanwhile, perhaps you could try to articulate properly the view that logic is in fact a property of (or somehow comes out of) the material world? Can you?

Given my references as a guide to answer your question on the standing point of how logic and science is defined I must say that logic is a process, not a material or physical substance. Logic, as the majority understands it, is inherently human. Now, you could argue that a predatorial wildcat uses instinctive logic to tackle it's prey, but a wildcat cannot communicate like a human does. Using logic to define logic, I would say that no, logic is not a material found in all of nature, logic is a process with no tangible feature and is inherently human and a characteristic of sentient intelligence. I would argue that without logic one cannot have science.