TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
First, that is demonstrably false.
Second, that also ignores how we obtain our logic and develop it further.
Logic is ultimately based in empirical reality. You do not know what is logical in advance.
It used to be logical that the sun orbits the earth. You can literally see the sun come up on one side, move across the sky and see it settle at the other side, and observe that process repeat itself indefinatly.
It was perfectly sound logic which matches the observations.
It was NEW DATA that showed that perfectly logical conclusion based on observation to be false. Suddenly, that perfectly logical conclusion, was no longer logical.
Logic is informed by, and derived from, observable reality.
Logic is, in a very real sense, no more or less then an abstraction of the patterns we observe in reality.
I've never seen dark matter ideas being presented as "truth", from the relevant sources.
I can name you a couple of instances where you would have been wrong by dissmissing a certain proposition only by using "logic" arguments.
Relativity, for one. Quantum mechanics in general, is another.
Both of these went directly against everything we thought was reasonable. It completely defied our common sense / logic.
We tought it was a logical statement to say that "an object can't be in 2 places at once", but then along came weird particles that were measured "here", while showing up "there".
What you can do, without additional data, is point out known logical flaws in an argument. Fallacies. Self-contradictions. But that's not really the same.
The "i know what is logical in advance" isn't either.
Upvote
0