Logic & Science

[Valjean]

If you're not going to use logic you've pretty much thrown reason right out the window. How can you study anything; draw any conclusions or evaluate evidence if you don't use logic?
if you're going to eliminate thinking. you might as well use a magic 8-ball or dice roll to design experiments or evaluate results.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

So science, which is the study of the physical world, still has to rely on something, logic, which is not physical? If so, science cannot justify its own foundation. All scientists can say is, "Look, so far it seems to work!"
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

All animal species are the result of evolution and they all have good models of their environment on Earth. What's special with human beings, if anything? Or do you think ants somehow use logic too?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you're not going to use logic you've pretty much thrown reason right out the window. How can you study anything; draw any conclusions or evaluate evidence if you don't use logic?
if you're going to eliminate thinking. you might as well use a magic 8-ball or dice roll to design experiments or evaluate results.

I'm not sure where you think I suggested not to use logic...

The issue is whether scientists can explain logic as some kind of physical thing.

If they can't, they can't claim to know science is not founded on some non-physical thing.
EB

 

[Business]

The issue is whether scientists can explain logic as some kind of physical thing.

If they can't, they can't claim to know science is not founded on some non-physical thing.
EB

You could say that specific areas of the human brain are fired up when critical thought is put to use, but such a process cannot be singled out then examined separately as with a car engine part can. Likely, if you can isolate brain stimulation and connect it to critical thought processes, it wouldn't be authoritative since our brains can trade control processes around to other parts of our brains.

So, I would say that would be as physical as examining the mental process of logic can get.

 

[blastula]

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.

Most scientists don't think about it anymore than the rest of us think about justifying logic when using logic. We have to assume logic is valid because we have no choice. And science doesn't assume materialism so it doesn't matter to science if logic can be materialistically justified.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Most scientists don't think about it anymore than the rest of us think about justifying logic when using logic. We have to assume logic is valid because we have no choice.

Personally, I certainly have no choice as to my own intuitive sense of logic. Same for scientists of course but we can also all choose to buy into so-called "modern logic" as theorised during the 20th. So which do you trust your science to?

And science doesn't assume materialism so it doesn't matter to science if logic can be materialistically justified.

I don't know that science explicitly assumes anything except the validity of logic and mathematics, which goes without saying.

Or is there some big, fat bible that would oblige all scientists that I don't know of?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The issue is whether scientists can explain logic as some kind of physical thing.

If they can't, they can't claim to know science is not founded on some non-physical thing.
EB

You could say that specific areas of the human brain are fired up when critical thought is put to use, but such a process cannot be singled out then examined separately as with a car engine part can. Likely, if you can isolate brain stimulation and connect it to critical thought processes, it wouldn't be authoritative since our brains can trade control processes around to other parts of our brains.

So, I would say that would be as physical as examining the mental process of logic can get.

Some psychologists have begun to investigate the mental processes underpinning our use of logic but I'm not sure where they are going.
EB

 

[Business]

So science, which is the study of the physical world, still has to rely on something, logic, which is not physical?

Science is many things, physical and non-physical. Logic and critical thought is a part of science but science isn't about logical process, science is about understanding in a general sense.

 

[blastula]

Most scientists don't think about it anymore than the rest of us think about justifying logic when using logic. We have to assume logic is valid because we have no choice.

Personally, I certainly have no choice as to my own intuitive sense of logic. Same for scientists of course but we can also all choose to buy into so-called "modern logic" as theorised during the 20th. So which do you trust your science to?

And science doesn't assume materialism so it doesn't matter to science if logic can be materialistically justified.

I don't know that science explicitly assumes anything except the validity of logic and mathematics, which goes without saying.

Or is there some big, fat bible that would oblige all scientists that I don't know of?

It also assumes empiricism but none of these assumptions make science inconsistent.

 

[untermensche]

Science has long given up actually trying to understand the universe.

Now it is about creating models that encompass the data.

Understanding why the data is there is too hard so science has abandoned that goal.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I certainly have no choice as to my own intuitive sense of logic. Same for scientists of course but we can also all choose to buy into so-called "modern logic" as theorised during the 20th. So which do you trust your science to?

And science doesn't assume materialism so it doesn't matter to science if logic can be materialistically justified.

I don't know that science explicitly assumes anything except the validity of logic and mathematics, which goes without saying.

Or is there some big, fat bible that would oblige all scientists that I don't know of?

It also assumes empiricism but none of these assumptions make science inconsistent.

And wherever is the authoritative account of this assumed empiricism?
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Science has long given up actually trying to understand the universe.

Now it is about creating models that encompass the data.

Understanding why the data is there is too hard so science has abandoned that goal.

Well, how do you understand it without making models for the data and then working onwards from there? Other than using the time-tested technique of gazing intently at your navel, that is?

 

[blastula]

Personally, I certainly have no choice as to my own intuitive sense of logic. Same for scientists of course but we can also all choose to buy into so-called "modern logic" as theorised during the 20th. So which do you trust your science to?

And science doesn't assume materialism so it doesn't matter to science if logic can be materialistically justified.

I don't know that science explicitly assumes anything except the validity of logic and mathematics, which goes without saying.



Or is there some big, fat bible that would oblige all scientists that I don't know of?

It also assumes empiricism but none of these assumptions make science inconsistent.

And wherever is the authoritative account of this assumed empiricism?

EB

Don't know what you mean.

 

[Malintent]

Science has long given up actually trying to understand the universe.

Now it is about creating models that encompass the data.

Understanding why the data is there is too hard so science has abandoned that goal.

I guess that explains why plumbers don't do electrical outlets... electricity is just too hard for plumbers.

 

[Malintent]

Actually, now that I think about it more, it is Theology that has given up on Science once it became apparent that Science wasn't helping the Theologians in power.

The church funded and backed science, hoping it would help us understand god better. Instead, it helped us understand what religion really is. myth and fable.

Theology was all about "why the data is there" (what is god's will).. they gave up on "what the data is", because it was too hard to incorporate into their superstitious dogma.

Science hasn't changed a bit. It is still about the whats, and never the whys.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Excellent. A good place to start.

First a definition of terms

from Wiki response to define logic

reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

Which can be restated as:

Merrian Webster: Definition of logic

• 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning a professor of logic (2): a branch or variety of logic modal logic Boolean logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge the logic of grammarb (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty She spent a long time explaining the situation, but he failed to see her logic. (2) : relevance, propriety could not understand the logic of such an actionc : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable By the logic of events, anarchy leads to dictatorship.

I'm going to presume that True = valid. Science doesn't use true it uses empirically near to truth or validity (I use the latter as a scientific term)

Now the difference between subjective world, philosophical logic, (classical Logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ )and validity (validity and soundness: http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ , and objective world, scientific logic, (scientific Method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and scientific validity (reliability and validity: https://chfasoa.uni.edu/reliabilityandvalidity.htm) becomes clear.

Belief in deductive systems is replaced with evidence in inductive (empirical) systems.

Now we can start and end with this with a discussion of the topic of validity. There we wind up with philosophical validity = true (self evident or believed) and material validity called actual validity, sometimes call true validity, or correspondence with the material world.

Scientists put stuff from philosophy into the face valid subcategory, a category as a scientist with which I was often confronted for business or political reasons. Sometimes philosophers put their true in either the construct or content valid subcategories. Usually these two sub categories are reserved for at least soft scientific investigations (aside: we needn't pursue further in current context). If you refer to the source on validity you can see that scientific validity has many thrusts: construct, content, structure, criterion, formative, sampling, all of which should approach as near as possible to one on a zero to one scale. IOW scientific validity is taking measure of results of study reality to reality as we know it in theory.

In my previous scientific world I most often worked with respect to material realization of ideal observer or ideal system. Most scientists work with respect to some norm or optimum usually constrained to variables at hand (those with which they were working).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Actually, now that I think about it more, it is Theology that has given up on Science once it became apparent that Science wasn't helping the Theologians in power.

The church funded and backed science, hoping it would help us understand god better. Instead, it helped us understand what religion really is. myth and fable.

Theology was all about "why the data is there" (what is god's will).. they gave up on "what the data is", because it was too hard to incorporate into their superstitious dogma.

Science hasn't changed a bit. It is still about the whats, and never the whys.

In theology, it has been said that God operates by secondary causes, that is nature. Reality is not a series of miracles. When science as we know it arose with people like Bacon, Descartes and Newton, science was the study of secondary causes. Descartes tried to figure out how souls and matter interacted, and notoriously, this attempt failed.

Science (natural philosophy) was forever separated from theology. An atheist chemist and a Catholic chemist did their chemistry in the same way. Logic is embedded into science as a governing principle. This type of logic is grounded in metaphysical naturalism. Because metaphysical naturalism works.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Excellent. A good place to start.

First a definition of terms

from Wiki response to define logic

reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

Which can be restated as:

Merrian Webster: Definition of logic

• 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning a professor of logic (2): a branch or variety of logic modal logic Boolean logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge the logic of grammarb (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty She spent a long time explaining the situation, but he failed to see her logic. (2) : relevance, propriety could not understand the logic of such an actionc : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable By the logic of events, anarchy leads to dictatorship.

I'm going to presume that True = valid. Science doesn't use true it uses empirically near to truth or validity (I use the latter as a scientific term)

Now the difference between subjective world, philosophical logic, (classical Logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ )and validity (validity and soundness: http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ , and objective world, scientific logic, (scientific Method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and scientific validity (reliability and validity: https://chfasoa.uni.edu/reliabilityandvalidity.htm) becomes clear.

Belief in deductive systems is replaced with evidence in inductive (empirical) systems.

Now we can start and end with this with a discussion of the topic of validity. There we wind up with philosophical validity = true (self evident or believed) and material validity called actual validity, sometimes call true validity, or correspondence with the material world.

Scientists put stuff from philosophy into the face valid subcategory, a category as a scientist with which I was often confronted for business or political reasons. Sometimes philosophers put their true in either the construct or content valid subcategories. Usually these two sub categories are reserved for at least soft scientific investigations (aside: we needn't pursue further in current context). If you refer to the source on validity you can see that scientific validity has many thrusts: construct, content, structure, criterion, formative, sampling, all of which should approach as near as possible to one on a zero to one scale. IOW scientific validity is taking measure of results of study reality to reality as we know it in theory.

In my previous scientific world I most often worked with respect to material realization of ideal observer or ideal system. Most scientists work with respect to some norm or optimum usually constrained to variables at hand (those with which they were working).

That's an awful lot of words for expressing your conceit that scientists have no use for deductive logic!


But wait! Maybe I misunderstood you, as so often I have...

Sooo, really, are you saying that scientists have no use for deductive logic?!

I'm mean, maybe you mean you, personally, have no use for deductive logic, which wouldn't be surprising at all, but, come on, do you really mean that real scientists could not possibly have any use for deductive logic?! I mean, how would you know?!

Are you also saying that scientists have no use for their own mind?

Are you sure you understand what deductive logic is?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Excellent. A good place to start.

First a definition of terms

from Wiki response to define logic

Which can be restated as:

Merrian Webster: Definition of logic

• 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning a professor of logic (2): a branch or variety of logic modal logic Boolean logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge the logic of grammarb (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty She spent a long time explaining the situation, but he failed to see her logic. (2) : relevance, propriety could not understand the logic of such an actionc : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable By the logic of events, anarchy leads to dictatorship.

I'm going to presume that True = valid. Science doesn't use true it uses empirically near to truth or validity (I use the latter as a scientific term)

Now the difference between subjective world, philosophical logic, (classical Logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ )and validity (validity and soundness: http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ , and objective world, scientific logic, (scientific Method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and scientific validity (reliability and validity: https://chfasoa.uni.edu/reliabilityandvalidity.htm) becomes clear.

Belief in deductive systems is replaced with evidence in inductive (empirical) systems.

Now we can start and end with this with a discussion of the topic of validity. There we wind up with philosophical validity = true (self evident or believed) and material validity called actual validity, sometimes call true validity, or correspondence with the material world.

Scientists put stuff from philosophy into the face valid subcategory, a category as a scientist with which I was often confronted for business or political reasons. Sometimes philosophers put their true in either the construct or content valid subcategories. Usually these two sub categories are reserved for at least soft scientific investigations (aside: we needn't pursue further in current context). If you refer to the source on validity you can see that scientific validity has many thrusts: construct, content, structure, criterion, formative, sampling, all of which should approach as near as possible to one on a zero to one scale. IOW scientific validity is taking measure of results of study reality to reality as we know it in theory.

In my previous scientific world I most often worked with respect to material realization of ideal observer or ideal system. Most scientists work with respect to some norm or optimum usually constrained to variables at hand (those with which they were working).

That's an awful lot of words for expressing your conceit that scientists have no use for deductive logic!


But wait! Maybe I misunderstood you, as so often I have...

Sooo, really, are you saying that scientists have no use for deductive logic?!

I'm mean, maybe you mean you, personally, have no use for deductive logic, which wouldn't be surprising at all, but, come on, do you really mean that real scientists could not possibly have any use for deductive logic?! I mean, how would you know?!

Are you also saying that scientists have no use for their own mind?

Are you sure you understand what deductive logic is?
EB

So you think I overstated.

Let me disabuse yourself of that thought. Systems built on test and experiment are the basis for more systems. Some of those system make use of deductions made possible by the inductive empire being built.

Oh, shit, he said deductive.

Point is whether one is better served by induction or deduction. As far as fundamentals of reality are concerned inductive approaches have had a continuous positive record while deductive approaches all lay by the wayside. So given a choice I always prefer inductive approach.

You missed the point of my post which is logic is essentially establishing validity and that inductive approaches are much richer in that respect.