Your statement directly contradicts itself.
if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic
the rules of logic are not specific to science
Which is it?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your statement directly contradicts itself.Vince, this whole side topic of the thread got started when you said that your logic may not be scientific, but it is still valid. I said that this was an absurd statement: if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic, because the rules of logic are not specific to science. The rules of logic are the same everywhere.
I think what he is saying is that there is no difference between "logic" and "scientific logic," that if a conclusion is logically sound then it can't be unscientific or whatever.Your statement directly contradicts itself.
if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic
the rules of logic are not specific to science
Which is it?
I think what he is saying is that there is no difference between "logic" and "scientific logic," that if a conclusion is logically sound then it can't be unscientific or whatever.
I think that you've actually answered a subtle variation of the questions. But I have altered some very fine details to the questions.That has been answered.
I disagree under both accounts. There is only one set of rules of logic. The rules of logic place limits upon the ways in which one can go from a set of premises to a conclusion. These rules are independent of whether the argument is used in science or outside of it.I believe that it may be valid to assert that your 'logical ruleset' is specific to science. But it would be invalid to assert that the 'logical ruleset' of science is (or should be) applicable to non-scientific realms.
If forced to choose, the second.Two questions that I might ask:
1. Is 'logic' specific to science (localized)?
2. Or is 'logic' universal (not science-specific)?
And who designed these rules? A scientist?I disagree under both accounts. There is only one set of rules of logic.
Scientists like lots of rules. What can I say? Without rules, how can we place the universe into a small little box? The more rules, the better. I am in control.Science does add additional stipulations to the premises and conclusions about whether or not arguments are useful to science.
I believe that this is rarely actually the case.If forced to choose, the second.
Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure.
Logically something may stand true, but practically it may not.Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure.
that is an example of a principle from a particular logic.
in particular a syllogism from deductive logic.
logics are a much more comprehensive topic than mere rhetoric or even sound reasoning.
Which is exactly why logic is not limited to, or specific for science.Logically something may stand true, but practically it may not.
Ugh. I find this a horrible statement. These rules don't apply to the universe. They apply to us. The rules of logic do not put us in control of anything external, they force us to retain self control.Scientists like lots of rules. What can I say? Without rules, how can we place the universe into a small little box? The more rules, the better. I am in control.
Radical skepticism is no more justifiable than any other approach. How does your 'hardcore agnosticism' stand up to its own scrutiny?I believe that this is rarely actually the case.
Taking somewhat of a hardcore agnostic stance, I believe that all logical arguments are essentially flawed at their core roots. Every logical argument breaks down with enough scrutiny, if we are only willing to question the certainty of our most stringent beliefs. We just need to splice down the most stringent of our logical assertions into their finest component parts, and they will eventually fall apart. We are all ignorant beasts.
Actually, you had referred to two different sets of rules. Firstly the rules of logic, and secondly some additional rules of science. Hence, the rules of logic more correctly constrain you, whereas your additional rules of science instead constrain the universe. Lotsa constraint going on.Ugh. I find this a horrible statement. These rules don't apply to the universe. They apply to us. The rules of logic do not put us in control of anything external, they force us to retain self control.
It seems to me that you're into a lot of constraints. Perhaps more than practically necessary. These constraints may serve you well in your personal endeavors, but it's best to be slow when projecting these requirements on the minds of others.The rules of logic, which are used not only by science but also many other disciplines, are used within science as a means to constrain our thought processes as much as possible so that we don't spend time spinning our wheels, as it were.
Luckily, I have no need to justify it to anyone. Unless of course, you feel such a need.Radical skepticism is no more justifiable than any other approach.
It's own scrutiny or yours? There's a difference.How does your 'hardcore agnosticism' stand up to its own scrutiny?
Which is exactly why logic is not limited to, or specific for science.
Logic applies to many areas other then science, for example philosophy or theology. It is not a system of thought designed by scientists, although it is applied by them.
Scientifically, if something is logically true but practically not, we always find that it is the premises that are incorrect, not the logical chain of reasoning.
No, they don't. They only constrain what scientists look at. And the constraint really isn't a constraint at all: it's merely a requirement that experiments be repeatable, and theories be testable experimentally. In other words, the only constraint is that science attempts to describe reality.Actually, you had referred to two different sets of rules. Firstly the rules of logic, and secondly some additional rules of science. Hence, the rules of logic more correctly constrain you, whereas your additional rules of science instead constrain the universe. Lotsa constraint going on.
And what, pray tell, are scientists missing?It seems to me that you're into a lot of constraints. Perhaps more than practically necessary. These constraints may serve you well in your personal endeavors, but it's best to be slow when projecting these requirements on the minds of others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?